Or, why Usenet/politics boards are here to stay:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/28/nyhan.birther.truth/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Editor's note: Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist, is a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan. He blogs at brendan-nyhan.com.
(CNN) -- Recent polls have found that as much as 15% to 20% of the public, including about 30% to 45% of Republicans, falsely believe that President Barack Obama was not born in this country. Will Wednesday's release of Obama's long-form birth certificate put an end to the birther myth?
The odds aren't good. The problem is that people can be extremely resistant to unwelcome factual information. In 2005 and 2006, I conducted a series of experiments to study this problem with Jason Reifler, a political scientist at Georgia State University.
In these studies, undergraduate participants were given news articles in which a political figure made a misleading claim. In some cases, this claim was followed by a correction that set the record straight. Disturbingly, we found that corrective information in news articles often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideological or partisan group that is most vulnerable to the false belief.
In some cases, corrections even made misperceptions worse -- a result we call a "backfire effect."
Unfortunately, this sort of response is typical. Many other studies have found that people tend to resist or reject information, including scientific evidence, that contradicts their pre-existing views.
In research that is under way, Reifler and I provide evidence that this defensive response is driven by the threat that contradictory information poses to people's self-concept. When we first affirm individuals' self-worth, those who are most likely to be misinformed report substantially lower misperceptions.
In this case, the birther movement has grown to its current prominence despite the release of a certification of live birth and the discovery of contemporaneous announcements of Obama's birth in two Honolulu newspapers.
Given how much evidence is already available, it's hard to see why a long-form birth certificate would suddenly change the minds of people who are predisposed to believe in the myth. The hardcore are already shifting to new rationales for questioning Obama's right to hold office and deconstructing the PDF released by the White House for supposed evidence of forgery.
What's sad is that this myth should be relatively easy to quash -- a paper trail exists that definitively establishes Obama's place of birth. By contrast, many misperceptions cannot be directly disproved.
For instance, though the best available evidence shows that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction immediately before the U.S. invasion, it was not possible to prove that they weren't moved or hidden to the 50% of Americans who believed he did as late as 2006.
Similarly, though Obama is a practicing Christian, no one can prove that he is not secretly a Muslim, as some Americans have said to pollsters.
The best hope for killing this myth -- or any similar one -- is to create a bipartisan consensus that it is false. If conservative elites speak out aggressively against it, Republicans who are distrustful of Obama and the mainstream media might change their minds. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely -- the political incentives to pander to birthers are still too strong (as Donald Trump has recently demonstrated).
More realistically, the release of the birth certificate may limit elite support for birtherism. Prominent Republicans may make fewer pro-birther statements. Likewise, state-level efforts to require that presidential candidates demonstrate their eligibility for office may lose steam. In this way, the disclosure may reduce the media coverage that helps keep the myth alive.
But regardless of how events play out, the release of Obama's birth certificate should still be seen as a victory for misinformation.
A baseless charge has forced the president of the United States to go to unprecedented lengths to prove he is legally qualified to hold office -- a concession that seems likely to encourage the creation of more myths in the future.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Court imposes limits on class actions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_class_actions
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.
In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.
The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.
In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.
The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.
The birther movement: immune to facts?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/27/birthers.evidence/index.html?hpt=Sbin
CNN) -- Can the "birthers" ever be convinced that Barack Obama was born in America and is eligible to serve as president?
Probably not, according to one prominent psychology professor and other political observers.
CNN) -- Can the "birthers" ever be convinced that Barack Obama was born in America and is eligible to serve as president?
Probably not, according to one prominent psychology professor and other political observers.
Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/27/news/companies/walmart_ceo_consumers_under_pressure/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Wal-Mart's core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago due to rising gasoline prices, and the retail giant is worried, CEO Mike Duke said Wednesday.
"We're seeing core consumers under a lot of pressure," Duke said at an event in New York. "There's no doubt that rising fuel prices are having an impact."
Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.
Lately, they're "running out of money" at a faster clip, he said.
"Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year," Duke said. "This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern.
Target prices beat Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), which averages 140 million shoppers weekly to its stores in the United States, is considered a barometer of the health of the consumer and the economy.
To that end, Duke said he's not seeing signs of a recovery yet.
With food prices rising, Duke said Wal-Mart is charging customers more for some fresh groceries while reducing prices on other merchandise such as electronics.
Wal-Mart has struggled with seven straight quarters of sales declines in its stores.
Addressing that challenge, Duke said the company made mistakes by shrinking product variety and not being more aggressive on prices compared to its competitors.
Wal-Mart's ready to do battle on prices
"What's made Wal-Mart great over the decades is 'every day low prices' and our [product] assortment," he said. "We got away from it."
Now, with its strategy of low prices all the time back in place, Duke said making Wal-Mart a "one-stop shopping stop" is a critical response to dealing with the rising price of fuel.
Americans don't have the luxury of driving all over town to do their shopping.
Other than competing on prices and products, Duke said Wal-Mart is focused on leveraging technology -- especially social networking -- more aggressively to drive sales.
"Social networking is much more a part of the purchasing decision," he said. "Consumers are communicating with each other on Facebook about how they spend their money and what they're buying."
Elsewhere, Duke said Wal-Mart is exploring a number of e-commerce initiatives to grow the business such as testing an online groceries delivery business in San Jose.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Wal-Mart's core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago due to rising gasoline prices, and the retail giant is worried, CEO Mike Duke said Wednesday.
"We're seeing core consumers under a lot of pressure," Duke said at an event in New York. "There's no doubt that rising fuel prices are having an impact."
Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.
Lately, they're "running out of money" at a faster clip, he said.
"Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year," Duke said. "This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern.
Target prices beat Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), which averages 140 million shoppers weekly to its stores in the United States, is considered a barometer of the health of the consumer and the economy.
To that end, Duke said he's not seeing signs of a recovery yet.
With food prices rising, Duke said Wal-Mart is charging customers more for some fresh groceries while reducing prices on other merchandise such as electronics.
Wal-Mart has struggled with seven straight quarters of sales declines in its stores.
Addressing that challenge, Duke said the company made mistakes by shrinking product variety and not being more aggressive on prices compared to its competitors.
Wal-Mart's ready to do battle on prices
"What's made Wal-Mart great over the decades is 'every day low prices' and our [product] assortment," he said. "We got away from it."
Now, with its strategy of low prices all the time back in place, Duke said making Wal-Mart a "one-stop shopping stop" is a critical response to dealing with the rising price of fuel.
Americans don't have the luxury of driving all over town to do their shopping.
Other than competing on prices and products, Duke said Wal-Mart is focused on leveraging technology -- especially social networking -- more aggressively to drive sales.
"Social networking is much more a part of the purchasing decision," he said. "Consumers are communicating with each other on Facebook about how they spend their money and what they're buying."
Elsewhere, Duke said Wal-Mart is exploring a number of e-commerce initiatives to grow the business such as testing an online groceries delivery business in San Jose.
A new era of accusation and innuendo
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53856.html
President Barack Obama’s appearance Wednesday in the White House briefing room to present a documented rebuttal of suspicions that he was not really born on U.S. soil was more than just a surprise. It was a decisive new turn in the centuries-long American history of political accusation and innuendo.
By directly and coolly engaging a debate with his most fevered critics, Obama offered the most unmistakable validation ever to the idea that we are living in an era of public life with no referee—and no common understandings between fair and unfair, between relevant and trivial, or even between facts and fantasy.
President Barack Obama’s appearance Wednesday in the White House briefing room to present a documented rebuttal of suspicions that he was not really born on U.S. soil was more than just a surprise. It was a decisive new turn in the centuries-long American history of political accusation and innuendo.
By directly and coolly engaging a debate with his most fevered critics, Obama offered the most unmistakable validation ever to the idea that we are living in an era of public life with no referee—and no common understandings between fair and unfair, between relevant and trivial, or even between facts and fantasy.
Publisher of upcoming 'birther' book makes no apologies
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42786288/ns/politics-decision_2012/
The publisher of an upcoming book questioning the circumstances of President Barack Obama’s birth took credit Wednesday for fueling conspiracy theories about the president’s origins, saying he paid for an army of private detectives in Hawaii and provided information about the issue to Donald Trump.
Joseph Farah, the founder and chief executive officer of World Net Daily, a conspiracy-mongering website with its own publishing arm, also said he has no intention of standing down despite the White House’s release of the so-called long form birth certificate showing that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, as he always has said.
“I’m not apologizing for nothing,” a defiant Farah said in a telephone interview with NBC News, insisting there are still questions about Obama’s citizenship aside from where he was born.
The comments by Farah underscore Obama’s observation Wednesday that hard-core birthers are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence, no matter how compelling. “I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest,” Obama said at a White House press event to release the birth certificate.
The publisher of an upcoming book questioning the circumstances of President Barack Obama’s birth took credit Wednesday for fueling conspiracy theories about the president’s origins, saying he paid for an army of private detectives in Hawaii and provided information about the issue to Donald Trump.
Joseph Farah, the founder and chief executive officer of World Net Daily, a conspiracy-mongering website with its own publishing arm, also said he has no intention of standing down despite the White House’s release of the so-called long form birth certificate showing that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, as he always has said.
“I’m not apologizing for nothing,” a defiant Farah said in a telephone interview with NBC News, insisting there are still questions about Obama’s citizenship aside from where he was born.
The comments by Farah underscore Obama’s observation Wednesday that hard-core birthers are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence, no matter how compelling. “I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest,” Obama said at a White House press event to release the birth certificate.
'Atlas Shrugged' producer: 'Critics, you won.' He's going 'on strike.'
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike/comments/page/2/
EXCLUSIVE: Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.
"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."
"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.
Aglialoro attributed the box office drop-off to "Atlas Shrugged's" poor reviews. Only one major critic -- Kyle Smith of the New York Post -- gave "Atlas" a mixed-to-positive review, calling the film "more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item." The movie has a dismal 7% fresh rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes thanks to critics like the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, who said "Atlas" is "crushingly ordinary in every way." Roger Ebert called the film "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault," while Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie "sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal."
"The New York Times gave us the most hateful review of all," said Aglialoro, who also has a writing credit on the movie. "They didn’t cover it."
The novel, a sacred text among many conservatives for Rand's passionate defense of capitalism, takes place at an unspecified future time in which the U.S. is mired in a deep depression and a mysterious phenomenon is causing the nation's leading industrialists to disappear or "strike."
Aglialoro's 97-minute adaptation is directed by first-timer Paul Johansson and stars little-known TV actors Taylor Schilling (as railroad executive Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as steel magnate Hank Rearden).
Though the film has made only $3.1 million so far, Aglialoro said he believes he'll recoup his investment after TV, DVD and other ancillary rights are sold. But he is backing off an earlier strategy to expand "Atlas" to 1,000 screens and reconsidering his plans to start production on a second film this fall.
"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I’ll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
Aglialoro, who is chief executive of the exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex, said he is not completely finished with Hollywood, however. An avid poker player who won the U.S. Poker Championship in 2004, he has a dramatic script called "Poker Room" in development. "Maybe the critics will be kinder to that one," he said.
EXCLUSIVE: Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.
"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."
"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.
Aglialoro attributed the box office drop-off to "Atlas Shrugged's" poor reviews. Only one major critic -- Kyle Smith of the New York Post -- gave "Atlas" a mixed-to-positive review, calling the film "more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item." The movie has a dismal 7% fresh rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes thanks to critics like the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, who said "Atlas" is "crushingly ordinary in every way." Roger Ebert called the film "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault," while Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie "sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal."
"The New York Times gave us the most hateful review of all," said Aglialoro, who also has a writing credit on the movie. "They didn’t cover it."
The novel, a sacred text among many conservatives for Rand's passionate defense of capitalism, takes place at an unspecified future time in which the U.S. is mired in a deep depression and a mysterious phenomenon is causing the nation's leading industrialists to disappear or "strike."
Aglialoro's 97-minute adaptation is directed by first-timer Paul Johansson and stars little-known TV actors Taylor Schilling (as railroad executive Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as steel magnate Hank Rearden).
Though the film has made only $3.1 million so far, Aglialoro said he believes he'll recoup his investment after TV, DVD and other ancillary rights are sold. But he is backing off an earlier strategy to expand "Atlas" to 1,000 screens and reconsidering his plans to start production on a second film this fall.
"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I’ll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
Aglialoro, who is chief executive of the exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex, said he is not completely finished with Hollywood, however. An avid poker player who won the U.S. Poker Championship in 2004, he has a dramatic script called "Poker Room" in development. "Maybe the critics will be kinder to that one," he said.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Funny Cartoon About Religion And Philosophy
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2223#comic
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Feds mine Facebook for info
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html
DETROIT — Federal investigators in Detroit have taken the rare step of obtaining search warrants that give them access to Facebook accounts of suspected criminals.
The warrants let investigators view photographs, email addresses, cell phone numbers, lists of friends who might double as partners in crime, and see GPS locations that could help disprove alibis.
There have been a few dozen search warrants for Facebook accounts nationwide since May 2009, including three approved recently by a federal magistrate judge in Detroit, according to a Detroit News analysis of publicly available federal court records.
The trend raises privacy and evidentiary concerns in a rapidly evolving digital age and illustrates the potential law-enforcement value of social media, experts said.
Locally, Facebook accounts have been seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and FBI to investigate more than a dozen gang members and accused bank robber Anthony Wilson of Detroit.
“To be honest with you, it bothers me,” said Wilson, 25, who was indicted Tuesday on bank robbery charges after the FBI compared Facebook photos with images taken from a bank surveillance video. “Facebook could have let me know what was going on. Instead, I got my door kicked down, and all of a sudden I’m in handcuffs.”
Federal investigators defend the practice. “With technology today, we would be crazy not to look at every avenue,” said Special Agent Donald Dawkins, spokesman with the ATF in Detroit.
The FBI suspected Wilson was behind a string of bank robberies across Metro Detroit that netted more than $6,300. Special Agent Juan Herrera said an informant told the FBI about Wilson’s Facebook account. It was registered under the name “Anthony Mrshowoff Wilson.”
In several photos on Facebook, Wilson was wearing a blue baseball hat and blue hooded sweatshirt, both featuring a Polo emblem. That’s the same outfit the FBI said the suspect wore when he stole $390 from a Bank of America Branch in Grosse Pointe Woods on Nov. 26, according to federal court records.
His Facebook photos also included one in which Wilson wore a red Philadelphia Phillies baseball hat, which the FBI said Wilson donned while robbing $1,363 from a PNC Bank branch in St. Clair Shores on Dec. 21, according to court records.
On Jan. 26, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan gave approval for the FBI to seize information from Wilson’s Facebook account. The warrant was executed within four hours.
Facebook gave the FBI Wilson’s contact information, including birth date, cell phone number, friends, incoming and outgoing messages, and photos.
Wilson was charged in a criminal complaint Feb. 7 and indicted Tuesday on five bank robbery charges. He is free on a $10,000 unsecured bond.
“I’m innocent until proven guilty,” Wilson told The Detroit News. “They’re basically going off my clothes. Ralph Lauren is a popular clothing line.”
He’s since updated his Facebook photo. Wilson swapped the blue Polo hat and blue Polo sweatshirt for white ones featuring the iconic Polo horse.
Despite the search warrants, his Facebook information page was still public Thursday.
Technology challenging
Morgan, the federal magistrate judge, also approved two search warrant requests from the ATF late last year and in February to search the accounts of at least 16 people suspected of belonging to a Detroit area gang. The affidavit justifying the search remains sealed in federal court.
Even with the access, investigators are having a hard time keeping up with high-tech crooks. In February, an FBI official testified before a House subcommittee about the difficulty accessing electronic communications on social media sites and email even with court approval.
“The FBI and other government agencies are facing a potentially widening gap between our legal authority to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to actually intercept those communications,” FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni testified.
Monitoring real-time Web-based conversations is particularly difficult, she said.
The FBI uses the term “Going Dark” to label the gap between having the authority to access electronic communications and the Internet service providers’ capability to gather the information. “This gap poses a growing threat to public safety,” Caproni testified.
Concerns over privacy
Information gleaned from the Internet raises constitutional and evidentiary issues that must be considered, including privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, said Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen, who also is an evidence professor at Wayne State University. Evidence obtained from the Internet and social media sites also raises issues about whether the information can be authenticated, he said.
“The Internet is the next frontier for the development of Fourth Amendment law,” Rosen said, referring to the amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A Facebook spokesman said the company receives a “significant volume of third-party data requests” that are reviewed individually for “legal sufficiency.”
“We do not comment publicly on data requests, even when we disclose the request to the user. We have this policy to respect privacy and avoid the risk that even acknowledging the existence of a request could wrongly harm the reputation of an individual,” said Andrew Noyes, Facebook manager of public policy communications. “We never turn over ’content’ records in response to U.S. legal process unless that process is a search warrant reviewed by a judge. We are required to regularly push back against overbroad requests for user records, but in most cases we are able to convince the party issuing legal process to withdraw the overbroad request, but if they do not, we fight the matter in court (and have a history of success in those cases.)”
Spokeswomen for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI declined to discuss techniques used by investigators.
It is unclear exactly how many search warrants have been executed for Facebook accounts. But requests - in Maryland , New York , North Carolina , Virginia , California , Pennsylvania , Montana and Alabama - come amid a backlash from users who complained too much of their personal information was being disclosed .
The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation , a digital civil liberties organization based in San Francisco, launched a campaign recently to encourage Facebook and others to disclose when and how often law-enforcement agencies request user account information.
DETROIT — Federal investigators in Detroit have taken the rare step of obtaining search warrants that give them access to Facebook accounts of suspected criminals.
The warrants let investigators view photographs, email addresses, cell phone numbers, lists of friends who might double as partners in crime, and see GPS locations that could help disprove alibis.
There have been a few dozen search warrants for Facebook accounts nationwide since May 2009, including three approved recently by a federal magistrate judge in Detroit, according to a Detroit News analysis of publicly available federal court records.
The trend raises privacy and evidentiary concerns in a rapidly evolving digital age and illustrates the potential law-enforcement value of social media, experts said.
Locally, Facebook accounts have been seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and FBI to investigate more than a dozen gang members and accused bank robber Anthony Wilson of Detroit.
“To be honest with you, it bothers me,” said Wilson, 25, who was indicted Tuesday on bank robbery charges after the FBI compared Facebook photos with images taken from a bank surveillance video. “Facebook could have let me know what was going on. Instead, I got my door kicked down, and all of a sudden I’m in handcuffs.”
Federal investigators defend the practice. “With technology today, we would be crazy not to look at every avenue,” said Special Agent Donald Dawkins, spokesman with the ATF in Detroit.
The FBI suspected Wilson was behind a string of bank robberies across Metro Detroit that netted more than $6,300. Special Agent Juan Herrera said an informant told the FBI about Wilson’s Facebook account. It was registered under the name “Anthony Mrshowoff Wilson.”
In several photos on Facebook, Wilson was wearing a blue baseball hat and blue hooded sweatshirt, both featuring a Polo emblem. That’s the same outfit the FBI said the suspect wore when he stole $390 from a Bank of America Branch in Grosse Pointe Woods on Nov. 26, according to federal court records.
His Facebook photos also included one in which Wilson wore a red Philadelphia Phillies baseball hat, which the FBI said Wilson donned while robbing $1,363 from a PNC Bank branch in St. Clair Shores on Dec. 21, according to court records.
On Jan. 26, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan gave approval for the FBI to seize information from Wilson’s Facebook account. The warrant was executed within four hours.
Facebook gave the FBI Wilson’s contact information, including birth date, cell phone number, friends, incoming and outgoing messages, and photos.
Wilson was charged in a criminal complaint Feb. 7 and indicted Tuesday on five bank robbery charges. He is free on a $10,000 unsecured bond.
“I’m innocent until proven guilty,” Wilson told The Detroit News. “They’re basically going off my clothes. Ralph Lauren is a popular clothing line.”
He’s since updated his Facebook photo. Wilson swapped the blue Polo hat and blue Polo sweatshirt for white ones featuring the iconic Polo horse.
Despite the search warrants, his Facebook information page was still public Thursday.
Technology challenging
Morgan, the federal magistrate judge, also approved two search warrant requests from the ATF late last year and in February to search the accounts of at least 16 people suspected of belonging to a Detroit area gang. The affidavit justifying the search remains sealed in federal court.
Even with the access, investigators are having a hard time keeping up with high-tech crooks. In February, an FBI official testified before a House subcommittee about the difficulty accessing electronic communications on social media sites and email even with court approval.
“The FBI and other government agencies are facing a potentially widening gap between our legal authority to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to actually intercept those communications,” FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni testified.
Monitoring real-time Web-based conversations is particularly difficult, she said.
The FBI uses the term “Going Dark” to label the gap between having the authority to access electronic communications and the Internet service providers’ capability to gather the information. “This gap poses a growing threat to public safety,” Caproni testified.
Concerns over privacy
Information gleaned from the Internet raises constitutional and evidentiary issues that must be considered, including privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, said Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen, who also is an evidence professor at Wayne State University. Evidence obtained from the Internet and social media sites also raises issues about whether the information can be authenticated, he said.
“The Internet is the next frontier for the development of Fourth Amendment law,” Rosen said, referring to the amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A Facebook spokesman said the company receives a “significant volume of third-party data requests” that are reviewed individually for “legal sufficiency.”
“We do not comment publicly on data requests, even when we disclose the request to the user. We have this policy to respect privacy and avoid the risk that even acknowledging the existence of a request could wrongly harm the reputation of an individual,” said Andrew Noyes, Facebook manager of public policy communications. “We never turn over ’content’ records in response to U.S. legal process unless that process is a search warrant reviewed by a judge. We are required to regularly push back against overbroad requests for user records, but in most cases we are able to convince the party issuing legal process to withdraw the overbroad request, but if they do not, we fight the matter in court (and have a history of success in those cases.)”
Spokeswomen for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI declined to discuss techniques used by investigators.
It is unclear exactly how many search warrants have been executed for Facebook accounts. But requests - in Maryland , New York , North Carolina , Virginia , California , Pennsylvania , Montana and Alabama - come amid a backlash from users who complained too much of their personal information was being disclosed .
The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation , a digital civil liberties organization based in San Francisco, launched a campaign recently to encourage Facebook and others to disclose when and how often law-enforcement agencies request user account information.
Last Typewriter Factory in the World Shuts Its Doors
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/last-typewriter-factory-in-the-world-shuts-its-doors/237838/
Monday, April 25, 2011
Botox May Deaden Ability to Empathize, New Study Says
http://blogs.forbes.com/marcbabej/2011/04/23/botox-may-deaden-ability-to-empathize-new-study-says/
How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon: The perverse allure of a damaged woman
http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/
Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?
Two new biographies of Rand—Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller—try to puzzle out this question, showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life.* But the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion.
Alisa Rosenbaum (her original name) was born in the icy winter of czarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St. Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, while her mother was an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children, and she kept them only out of duty. Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood," headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise."
But the Rosenbaums' domestic tensions were dwarfed by the conflicts raging outside. The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs—but it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father's pharmacy was seized "in the name of the people." For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where 5 million people died of starvation in just two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike."
The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to their relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family for the last time. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies—the America of skyscrapers and riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.
Advertisement
Click Here!
She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."
She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."
It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them—through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living (1936), and in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."
She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on. All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor—not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the housing project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil government bureaucrats. He orders the jury to acquit him, saying: "The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!"
For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike to protest against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation—and said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages," "refuse," "inanimate objects," and "imitations of living beings," picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.
Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.
As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: "There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy."
Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.
In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower called Nathaniel Branden and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult's No. 2, and she named him as her "intellectual heir"—until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand's philosophy "taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement." So to be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person. She screamed: "You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?"
She never really recovered. We all become weak at some point in our lives, so a thinker who despises weakness will end up despising herself. In her 70s Rand found herself dying of lung cancer, after insisting that her followers smoke because it symbolized "man's victory over fire" and the studies showing it caused lung cancer were Communist propaganda. By then she had driven almost everyone away. In 1982, she died alone in her apartment with only a hired nurse at her side. If her philosophy is right—if the only human relationships worth having are based on the exchange of dollars—this was a happy and victorious death. Did even she believe it in the end?
Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.
I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.
Rand expresses, with a certain pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you any more! She then absolutizes it in an amphetamine Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.
This urge exists everywhere, but why is it supercharged on the American right, where Rand is regarded as something more than a bad, bizarre joke? In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.
She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable.
We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s: Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protected the lice of Main Street?
The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.
Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?
Two new biographies of Rand—Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller—try to puzzle out this question, showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life.* But the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion.
Alisa Rosenbaum (her original name) was born in the icy winter of czarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St. Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, while her mother was an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children, and she kept them only out of duty. Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood," headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise."
But the Rosenbaums' domestic tensions were dwarfed by the conflicts raging outside. The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs—but it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father's pharmacy was seized "in the name of the people." For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where 5 million people died of starvation in just two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike."
The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to their relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family for the last time. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies—the America of skyscrapers and riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.
Advertisement
Click Here!
She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."
She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."
It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them—through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living (1936), and in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."
She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on. All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor—not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the housing project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil government bureaucrats. He orders the jury to acquit him, saying: "The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!"
For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike to protest against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation—and said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages," "refuse," "inanimate objects," and "imitations of living beings," picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.
Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.
As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: "There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy."
Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.
In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower called Nathaniel Branden and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult's No. 2, and she named him as her "intellectual heir"—until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand's philosophy "taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement." So to be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person. She screamed: "You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?"
She never really recovered. We all become weak at some point in our lives, so a thinker who despises weakness will end up despising herself. In her 70s Rand found herself dying of lung cancer, after insisting that her followers smoke because it symbolized "man's victory over fire" and the studies showing it caused lung cancer were Communist propaganda. By then she had driven almost everyone away. In 1982, she died alone in her apartment with only a hired nurse at her side. If her philosophy is right—if the only human relationships worth having are based on the exchange of dollars—this was a happy and victorious death. Did even she believe it in the end?
Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.
I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.
Rand expresses, with a certain pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you any more! She then absolutizes it in an amphetamine Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.
This urge exists everywhere, but why is it supercharged on the American right, where Rand is regarded as something more than a bad, bizarre joke? In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.
She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable.
We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s: Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protected the lice of Main Street?
The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.
N.Y. case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-04-25-wifi-warning.htm
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of “pedophile!” and “pornographer!” stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn’t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He’d gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
“We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,” the man’s lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, “Doldrum.”
“No, I didn’t,” he insisted. “Somebody else could have but I didn’t do anything like that.”
“You’re a creep … just admit it,” they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
Plenty of others would agree. The Sarasota, Fla. man, for example, who got a similar visit from the FBI last year after someone on a boat docked in a marina outside his building used a potato chip can as an antenna to boost his wireless signal and download an astounding 10 million images of child porn, or the North Syracuse, N.Y., man who in December 2009 opened his door to police who’d been following an electronic trail of illegal videos and images. The man’s neighbor pleaded guilty April 12.
For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner’s desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife’s iPads and iPhones.
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.
It’s unknown how often unsecured routers have brought legal trouble for subscribers. Besides the criminal investigations, the Internet is full of anecdotal accounts of people who’ve had to fight accusations of illegally downloading music or movies.
Whether you’re guilty or not, “you look like the suspect,” said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who said that’s just one of many reasons to secure home routers.
Experts say the more savvy hackers can go beyond just connecting to the Internet on the host’s dime and monitor Internet activity and steal passwords or other sensitive information.
A study released in February provides a sense of how often computer users rely on the generosity — or technological shortcomings — of their neighbors to gain Internet access.
The poll conducted for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes wireless technology standards, found that among 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, 32 percent acknowledged trying to access a Wi-Fi network that wasn’t theirs. An estimated 201 million households worldwide use Wi-Fi networks, according to the alliance.
The same study, conducted by Wakefield Research, found that 40 percent said they would be more likely to trust someone with their house key than with their Wi-Fi network password.
For some, though, leaving their wireless router open to outside use is a philosophical decision, a way of returning the favor for the times they’ve hopped on to someone else’s network to check e-mail or download directions while away from home .
“I think it’s convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network,” said Rebecca Jeschke, whose home signal is accessible to anyone within range.
“Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I’m happy to participate in that — and lots of people are,” said Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues.
Experts say wireless routers come with encryption software, but setting it up means a trip to the manual.
The government’s Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends home users make their networks invisible to others by disabling the identifier broadcasting function that allows wireless access points to announce their presence. It also advises users to replace any default network names or passwords, since those are widely known, and to keep an eye on the manufacturer’s website for security patches or updates.
People who keep an open wireless router won’t necessarily know when someone else is piggybacking on the signal, which usually reaches 300-400 feet, though a slower connection may be a clue.
For the Buffalo homeowner, who didn’t want to be identified, the tip-off wasn’t nearly as subtle.
It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn’t immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“They are screaming at him, ‘Get down! Get down on the ground!’ He’s saying, ‘Who are you? Who are you?’” Covert said.
“One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he’s got the cuts and bruises to show for it,” said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed.
The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.
But this wasn’t a case of officers rushing into the wrong house. Court filings show exactly what led them there and why.
On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of “Doldrum,” the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
Investigators could have taken an extra step before going inside the house and used a laptop or other device outside the home to see whether there was an unsecured signal. That alone wouldn’t have exonerated the homeowner, but it would have raised the possibility that someone else was responsible for the downloads.
After a search of his devices proved the homeowner’s innocence, investigators went back to the peer-to-peer software and looked at logs that showed what other IP addresses Doldrum had connected from. Two were associated with the State University of New York at Buffalo and accessed using a secure token that UB said was assigned to a student living in an apartment adjacent to the homeowner. Agents arrested John Luchetti March 17. He has pleaded not guilty to distribution of child pornography.
Luchetti is not charged with using his neighbor’s Wi-Fi without permission. Whether it was illegal is up for debate.
“The question,” said Kerr, “is whether it’s unauthorized access and so you have to say, ‘Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not?’
”We don’t know,“ Kerr said. ”The law prohibits unauthorized access and it’s just not clear what’s authorized with an open unsecured wireless.“
In Germany, the country’s top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.
The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of “pedophile!” and “pornographer!” stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn’t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He’d gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
“We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,” the man’s lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, “Doldrum.”
“No, I didn’t,” he insisted. “Somebody else could have but I didn’t do anything like that.”
“You’re a creep … just admit it,” they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
Plenty of others would agree. The Sarasota, Fla. man, for example, who got a similar visit from the FBI last year after someone on a boat docked in a marina outside his building used a potato chip can as an antenna to boost his wireless signal and download an astounding 10 million images of child porn, or the North Syracuse, N.Y., man who in December 2009 opened his door to police who’d been following an electronic trail of illegal videos and images. The man’s neighbor pleaded guilty April 12.
For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner’s desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife’s iPads and iPhones.
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.
It’s unknown how often unsecured routers have brought legal trouble for subscribers. Besides the criminal investigations, the Internet is full of anecdotal accounts of people who’ve had to fight accusations of illegally downloading music or movies.
Whether you’re guilty or not, “you look like the suspect,” said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who said that’s just one of many reasons to secure home routers.
Experts say the more savvy hackers can go beyond just connecting to the Internet on the host’s dime and monitor Internet activity and steal passwords or other sensitive information.
A study released in February provides a sense of how often computer users rely on the generosity — or technological shortcomings — of their neighbors to gain Internet access.
The poll conducted for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes wireless technology standards, found that among 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, 32 percent acknowledged trying to access a Wi-Fi network that wasn’t theirs. An estimated 201 million households worldwide use Wi-Fi networks, according to the alliance.
The same study, conducted by Wakefield Research, found that 40 percent said they would be more likely to trust someone with their house key than with their Wi-Fi network password.
For some, though, leaving their wireless router open to outside use is a philosophical decision, a way of returning the favor for the times they’ve hopped on to someone else’s network to check e-mail or download directions while away from home .
“I think it’s convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network,” said Rebecca Jeschke, whose home signal is accessible to anyone within range.
“Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I’m happy to participate in that — and lots of people are,” said Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues.
Experts say wireless routers come with encryption software, but setting it up means a trip to the manual.
The government’s Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends home users make their networks invisible to others by disabling the identifier broadcasting function that allows wireless access points to announce their presence. It also advises users to replace any default network names or passwords, since those are widely known, and to keep an eye on the manufacturer’s website for security patches or updates.
People who keep an open wireless router won’t necessarily know when someone else is piggybacking on the signal, which usually reaches 300-400 feet, though a slower connection may be a clue.
For the Buffalo homeowner, who didn’t want to be identified, the tip-off wasn’t nearly as subtle.
It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn’t immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“They are screaming at him, ‘Get down! Get down on the ground!’ He’s saying, ‘Who are you? Who are you?’” Covert said.
“One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he’s got the cuts and bruises to show for it,” said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed.
The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.
But this wasn’t a case of officers rushing into the wrong house. Court filings show exactly what led them there and why.
On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of “Doldrum,” the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
Investigators could have taken an extra step before going inside the house and used a laptop or other device outside the home to see whether there was an unsecured signal. That alone wouldn’t have exonerated the homeowner, but it would have raised the possibility that someone else was responsible for the downloads.
After a search of his devices proved the homeowner’s innocence, investigators went back to the peer-to-peer software and looked at logs that showed what other IP addresses Doldrum had connected from. Two were associated with the State University of New York at Buffalo and accessed using a secure token that UB said was assigned to a student living in an apartment adjacent to the homeowner. Agents arrested John Luchetti March 17. He has pleaded not guilty to distribution of child pornography.
Luchetti is not charged with using his neighbor’s Wi-Fi without permission. Whether it was illegal is up for debate.
“The question,” said Kerr, “is whether it’s unauthorized access and so you have to say, ‘Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not?’
”We don’t know,“ Kerr said. ”The law prohibits unauthorized access and it’s just not clear what’s authorized with an open unsecured wireless.“
In Germany, the country’s top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.
The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.
Michigan Police Deny Secretly Extracting Mobile Data During Traffic Stops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20110421/tc_zd/263456
The Michigan Police Force has denied the unlawful use of a device that can extract all your cell phone information, the same technology that is embedded in many of our cell phones.
The data extraction devices (DED) are manufactured by CelleBrite and can quickly extract mobile data, such as contacts, photos, and deleted text messages, from your SD card. CelleBrite counts Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and other major carriers as customers; the technology is used to transfer data to a new phone when you upgrade.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan police force bought the devices in 2006. The force justified the purchase as necessary "due to the increasing use of mobile communication devices by criminals to further their criminal activity, and have become a powerful investigative tool used to obtain critical information from criminals."
On April 13 the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter (see below) to the MSP asking for an explanation of how the devices are used.
"A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched," wrote ACLU attorney Mark Fancher, in his letter to Lt. Col. Kriste Etue of the MSP. "Additionally, if racially disproportionate incarceration rates in the state are the result of racially disproportionate contact with law enforcement officers, then there is reason to be concerned that Michigan residents of color are more likely to have their cell phones searched by Michigan State Police."
On Wednesday the police released a statement outlining how its employees are supposed to use DEDs. Police must hold a search warrant, or obtain consent from the mobile device holder, before using the DED to extract mobile data. Furthermore the DEDs can only be used by "specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children," the statement read.
"The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."
The Michigan Police Force has denied the unlawful use of a device that can extract all your cell phone information, the same technology that is embedded in many of our cell phones.
The data extraction devices (DED) are manufactured by CelleBrite and can quickly extract mobile data, such as contacts, photos, and deleted text messages, from your SD card. CelleBrite counts Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and other major carriers as customers; the technology is used to transfer data to a new phone when you upgrade.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan police force bought the devices in 2006. The force justified the purchase as necessary "due to the increasing use of mobile communication devices by criminals to further their criminal activity, and have become a powerful investigative tool used to obtain critical information from criminals."
On April 13 the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter (see below) to the MSP asking for an explanation of how the devices are used.
"A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched," wrote ACLU attorney Mark Fancher, in his letter to Lt. Col. Kriste Etue of the MSP. "Additionally, if racially disproportionate incarceration rates in the state are the result of racially disproportionate contact with law enforcement officers, then there is reason to be concerned that Michigan residents of color are more likely to have their cell phones searched by Michigan State Police."
On Wednesday the police released a statement outlining how its employees are supposed to use DEDs. Police must hold a search warrant, or obtain consent from the mobile device holder, before using the DED to extract mobile data. Furthermore the DEDs can only be used by "specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children," the statement read.
"The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
150 Years After Fort Sumter: Why We're Still Fighting the Civil War
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html
A few weeks before Captain George S. James sent the first mortar round arcing through the predawn darkness toward Fort Sumter, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln cast his Inaugural Address as a last-ditch effort to win back the South. A single thorny issue divided the nation, he declared: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
It was not a controversial statement at the time. Indeed, Southern leaders were saying similar things during those fateful days. But 150 years later, Americans have lost that clarity about the cause of the Civil War, the most traumatic and transformational event in U.S. history, which left more than 625,000 dead — more Americans killed than in both world wars combined.
Shortly before the Fort Sumter anniversary, Harris Interactive polled more than 2,500 adults across the country, asking what the North and South were fighting about. A majority, including two-thirds of white respondents in the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, answered that the South was mainly motivated by "states' rights" rather than the future of slavery.
The question "What caused the Civil War?" returns 20 million Google hits and a wide array of arguments on Internet comment boards and discussion threads. The Civil War was caused by Northern aggressors invading an independent Southern nation. Or it was caused by high tariffs. Or it was caused by blundering statesmen. Or it was caused by the clash of industrial and agrarian cultures. Or it was caused by fanatics. Or it was caused by the Marxist class struggle.
On and on, seemingly endless, sometimes contradictory — although not among mainstream historians, who in the past generation have come to view the question much as Lincoln saw it. "Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," says Princeton professor James McPherson, whose book Battle Cry of Freedom is widely judged to be the authoritative one-volume history of the war. Another leading authority, David Blight of Yale, laments, "No matter what we do or the overwhelming consensus among historians, out in the public mind, there is still this need to deny that slavery was the cause of the war."
It's not simply a matter of denial. For most of the first century after the war, historians, novelists and filmmakers worked like hypnotists to soothe the posttraumatic memories of survivors and their descendants. Forgetting was the price of reconciliation, and Americans — those whose families were never bought or sold, anyway — were happy to pay it.
But denial plays a part, especially in the South. After the war, former Confederates wondered how to hold on to their due pride after a devastating defeat. They had fought long and courageously; that was beyond question. So they reverse-engineered a cause worthy of those heroics. They also sensed, correctly, that the end of slavery would confer a gloss of nobility, and bragging rights, on the North that it did not deserve. As Lincoln suggested in his second Inaugural Address, the entire nation, North and South, profited from slavery and then paid dearly for it.
The process of forgetting, and obscuring, was long and layered. Some of it was benign, but not all. It began with self-justifying memoirs by defeated Confederate leaders and was picked up by war-weary veterans on both sides who wanted to move on. In the devastated South, writers and historians kindled comforting stories of noble cavaliers, brilliant generals and happy slaves, all faithful to a glorious lost cause. In the prosperous North, where cities and factories began filling with freed slaves and their descendants, large audiences were happy to embrace this idea of a time when racial issues were both simple and distant.
History is not just about the past. It also reveals the present. And for generations of Americans after the Civil War, the present did not have room for that radical idea laid bare by the conflict: that all people really are created equal. That was a big bite to chew.
****
To be blind to the reason the war happened is to build a sort of border of the mind, walling off an important truth. Slavery was not incidental to America's origins; it was central. There were slaves at Jamestown. In the 1600s, writes Yale's David Brion Davis, a towering figure among historians, slave labor was far more central to the making of New York than to the making of Virginia. As late as 1830, there were 2,254 slaves in New Jersey. Connecticut did not abolish slavery until 1848, a scant eight years before the fighting broke out in Kansas. Rhode Island dominated the American slave trade until it was outlawed in 1808. The cotton trade made Wall Street a global financial force. Slaves built the White House.
Furthermore, if slavery had spread to the West, the country would have found itself increasingly isolated in the world. Russia emancipated its serfs in 1861. The once sprawling slave system that had stretched from Canada to South America was by 1808 still vital only in Brazil, Cuba and the U.S. The first nation founded on the principle of liberty came dangerously close to being among the last slave economies on earth.
Two fallacies prop up the wall of forgetfulness. The first is that slavery somehow wasn't really that important — that it was a historical relic, unprofitable, dying out, or that all societies did it, or that the slaves were happy. But slavery was important, and not just to the 4 million men, women and children enslaved — a number equal to the population of Los Angeles today. And the fact that it ended is important too.
The second fallacy is that this was only the South's problem and that the North solved it. Not long ago, the New-York Historical Society mounted its largest-ever exhibition, titled "Slavery in New York." You can still visit the website and listen to public reactions. Over and over again, visitors repeat the same theme: as a teacher, as a college graduate, as a native New Yorker, "I knew absolutely nothing about this." As long as that belief persists, spoken or unspoken, Americans whose hearts lie with Dixie will understandably continue to defend their homes and honor against such Yankee arrogance.
Lincoln's words a few weeks before his death were often quoted after the war by those who wanted not just to forgive but also to forget: "With malice toward none, with charity for all." But those words drew their deepest power from the ones he spoke just before them: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
In other words, the path to healing and mercy goes by way of honesty and humility. After 150 years, it's time to finish the journey.
A few weeks before Captain George S. James sent the first mortar round arcing through the predawn darkness toward Fort Sumter, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln cast his Inaugural Address as a last-ditch effort to win back the South. A single thorny issue divided the nation, he declared: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
It was not a controversial statement at the time. Indeed, Southern leaders were saying similar things during those fateful days. But 150 years later, Americans have lost that clarity about the cause of the Civil War, the most traumatic and transformational event in U.S. history, which left more than 625,000 dead — more Americans killed than in both world wars combined.
Shortly before the Fort Sumter anniversary, Harris Interactive polled more than 2,500 adults across the country, asking what the North and South were fighting about. A majority, including two-thirds of white respondents in the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, answered that the South was mainly motivated by "states' rights" rather than the future of slavery.
The question "What caused the Civil War?" returns 20 million Google hits and a wide array of arguments on Internet comment boards and discussion threads. The Civil War was caused by Northern aggressors invading an independent Southern nation. Or it was caused by high tariffs. Or it was caused by blundering statesmen. Or it was caused by the clash of industrial and agrarian cultures. Or it was caused by fanatics. Or it was caused by the Marxist class struggle.
On and on, seemingly endless, sometimes contradictory — although not among mainstream historians, who in the past generation have come to view the question much as Lincoln saw it. "Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," says Princeton professor James McPherson, whose book Battle Cry of Freedom is widely judged to be the authoritative one-volume history of the war. Another leading authority, David Blight of Yale, laments, "No matter what we do or the overwhelming consensus among historians, out in the public mind, there is still this need to deny that slavery was the cause of the war."
It's not simply a matter of denial. For most of the first century after the war, historians, novelists and filmmakers worked like hypnotists to soothe the posttraumatic memories of survivors and their descendants. Forgetting was the price of reconciliation, and Americans — those whose families were never bought or sold, anyway — were happy to pay it.
But denial plays a part, especially in the South. After the war, former Confederates wondered how to hold on to their due pride after a devastating defeat. They had fought long and courageously; that was beyond question. So they reverse-engineered a cause worthy of those heroics. They also sensed, correctly, that the end of slavery would confer a gloss of nobility, and bragging rights, on the North that it did not deserve. As Lincoln suggested in his second Inaugural Address, the entire nation, North and South, profited from slavery and then paid dearly for it.
The process of forgetting, and obscuring, was long and layered. Some of it was benign, but not all. It began with self-justifying memoirs by defeated Confederate leaders and was picked up by war-weary veterans on both sides who wanted to move on. In the devastated South, writers and historians kindled comforting stories of noble cavaliers, brilliant generals and happy slaves, all faithful to a glorious lost cause. In the prosperous North, where cities and factories began filling with freed slaves and their descendants, large audiences were happy to embrace this idea of a time when racial issues were both simple and distant.
History is not just about the past. It also reveals the present. And for generations of Americans after the Civil War, the present did not have room for that radical idea laid bare by the conflict: that all people really are created equal. That was a big bite to chew.
****
To be blind to the reason the war happened is to build a sort of border of the mind, walling off an important truth. Slavery was not incidental to America's origins; it was central. There were slaves at Jamestown. In the 1600s, writes Yale's David Brion Davis, a towering figure among historians, slave labor was far more central to the making of New York than to the making of Virginia. As late as 1830, there were 2,254 slaves in New Jersey. Connecticut did not abolish slavery until 1848, a scant eight years before the fighting broke out in Kansas. Rhode Island dominated the American slave trade until it was outlawed in 1808. The cotton trade made Wall Street a global financial force. Slaves built the White House.
Furthermore, if slavery had spread to the West, the country would have found itself increasingly isolated in the world. Russia emancipated its serfs in 1861. The once sprawling slave system that had stretched from Canada to South America was by 1808 still vital only in Brazil, Cuba and the U.S. The first nation founded on the principle of liberty came dangerously close to being among the last slave economies on earth.
Two fallacies prop up the wall of forgetfulness. The first is that slavery somehow wasn't really that important — that it was a historical relic, unprofitable, dying out, or that all societies did it, or that the slaves were happy. But slavery was important, and not just to the 4 million men, women and children enslaved — a number equal to the population of Los Angeles today. And the fact that it ended is important too.
The second fallacy is that this was only the South's problem and that the North solved it. Not long ago, the New-York Historical Society mounted its largest-ever exhibition, titled "Slavery in New York." You can still visit the website and listen to public reactions. Over and over again, visitors repeat the same theme: as a teacher, as a college graduate, as a native New Yorker, "I knew absolutely nothing about this." As long as that belief persists, spoken or unspoken, Americans whose hearts lie with Dixie will understandably continue to defend their homes and honor against such Yankee arrogance.
Lincoln's words a few weeks before his death were often quoted after the war by those who wanted not just to forgive but also to forget: "With malice toward none, with charity for all." But those words drew their deepest power from the ones he spoke just before them: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
In other words, the path to healing and mercy goes by way of honesty and humility. After 150 years, it's time to finish the journey.
How America Fights Its Wars
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2038003,00.html
With tactical commands located on all of earth's continents, the U.S. military is the world's sole colossus. But ambivalence to the use of American power has always run deep within the U.S. In How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires, and the American Way of War, Dominic Tierney, an assistant professor of political science at Swarthmore College, outlines what he sees as two parallel modes in the American experience of war that have lingered since the Civil War. TIME spoke to Tierney about recent American crusades and quagmires and how different it all was for the nation's founders. (See the history of photographing the nation's war dead.)
It seems that zeal has been central to much of this nation's feelings behind war. You call Americans the most ideological people in the world. That must sound like news to most Americans.
There's a profound national ideology, which is this belief in democracy and freedom and self-determination and limited government. It's basically a consensus belief; Americans don't see themselves as ideological because everyone believes in this ideology. What's interesting is that Americans are far more ideological than Soviet communists or, say, Chinese communists were. At the end of the Cold War, those countries just discarded their communism. But it would be impossible for Americans to discard their belief in the American way so easily.
How did you decide upon this dichotomy of crusades and quagmires?
If you look at the wars in American history, from the Civil War to the World Wars to Iraq, they all seem quite unique. But there are actually some important patterns about how we experience war, how we think about war. These conflicts don't repeat themselves, but they do rhyme. Basically, for the past 150 years we've liked smashing tyrants, but we've hated dealing with the messy consequences. And so what we see in U.S. history is that wars against enemy countries [including the Confederacy] are seen as crusades for grand majestic objectives like regime change. But nation-building missions where we try to stabilize a conquered land — we tend to see these as quagmires, as disastrous failures. (See ninety years of battlefield portraits.)
And these are themes that are consistent throughout? The face of American might in the 1860s looked very different from how it does today.
America's power position has changed dramatically in the last century and a half. It's gone from a rising power to one of several great powers to one of two to the only great power. And soon it may gain company again with China and India. America's power allows America to launch these crusades — if it was weaker, it would launch fewer — but I'd also say that this pattern has existed for 150 years, when the US was far weaker.
And, of course, technology has changed: the Civil War involves campaigns of stockades and muskets and you look at war today with daisy-cutter bombs and weaponized anthrax and Predator drones. That said, the patterns I talk about tend to hold true even in these profoundly different environments. It hasn't changed the basic American response.
In making your argument about the nature of this response, you invoke George Kennan, the diplomat who authored the U.S.'s containment strategy during the Cold War. He saw the U.S. war machine as some sort of primeval beast.
Kennan, back in the 1950s, felt the U.S. was like a "prehistoric dinosaur." It was slow to spot threats, it would just sit there while threats built up, until at some point it got attacked. Then it would lurch around its environment like a crazed dinosaur, basically destroying its environment. What he calls a raging dinosaur, I may call a zealous crusader. (See pictures of the Cold War's influence on Art: 1945-1970.)
Your chapter on the Spanish-American War provides a handy illustration how crusader efforts get remembered and quagmires are often forgotten. We all know about Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in Cuba, but few remember or talk about the U.S. annexation of the Philippines.
In 1898, we went to war against Spain and the war was all about Cuba. But by the end of the war, the goals had escalated dramatically and we had conquered the Philippines. This was 7,000 islands, 7,000 miles away, and this led to one of America's first nation-building missions, which began as a very bloody counterinsurgency war against Filipino nationalists. There are some very interesting parallels between this war and the war in Iraq. Similar number of Americans dead, about 4,000, as well as accusations of U.S. torture and mistreatment of captives.
The American public very quickly grew weary of the operation. It was engaged in this counterinsurgency that Americans couldn't understand, so far removed from the glorious Spanish-American War — just in the same way counterinsurgency in Iraq was so far removed from the glorious toppling of Saddam. Even the champions of annexing the Philippines, like Theodore Roosevelt, grew disillusioned. He described it as our "heel of Achilles." But we stayed in the Philippines until 1946, and it was a very significant nation-building operation, with some failures and some successes.
You point to the way the founding fathers thought about the military as a kind of antidote to how the U.S. has waged war since the Civil War. Why?
The founding fathers and their initial successors held the opposite view of war to modern Americans. They didn't see wars as crusades; they saw wars as those fought for limited goals — say, against Britain in 1812 and Mexico in 1846. In fact, the founders believed that going on grand crusades could imperil the American project and would be very dangerous. Some were even opposed to having a standing army.
Meanwhile, interestingly, the founders weren't as averse to nation-building as later Americans would be. The early military was building roads, schools and national infrastructure, surveying and mapping the west, giving out humanitarian aid to settlers. And a lot of these broader-type activities — along with others we should celebrate less, like the treatment of Native Americans — went way beyond simply smiting enemy tyrants. While the context is worlds away from today, there's some interesting points of analogy. If the founders built a multipurpose army designed for a wide range of challenges, I think we need our own multipurpose army for our own very different challenges today.
So should the U.S. military don blue helmets and be peacekeepers? Or should it learn to curb its crusader zeal?
The irony of course is that regime change leads directly to nation-building. We need to be more careful about overthrowing tyrants. The flip side of the story is that we need to think about our aversion to nation-building. Think about the Iraq war with Bush and Donald Rumsfeld — they were archcrusaders who wanted to overthrow the Taliban and then get out, overthrow Saddam Hussein and then get out. You throw them out and don't have a plan for what happens next. That's the worst of all worlds.
With tactical commands located on all of earth's continents, the U.S. military is the world's sole colossus. But ambivalence to the use of American power has always run deep within the U.S. In How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires, and the American Way of War, Dominic Tierney, an assistant professor of political science at Swarthmore College, outlines what he sees as two parallel modes in the American experience of war that have lingered since the Civil War. TIME spoke to Tierney about recent American crusades and quagmires and how different it all was for the nation's founders. (See the history of photographing the nation's war dead.)
It seems that zeal has been central to much of this nation's feelings behind war. You call Americans the most ideological people in the world. That must sound like news to most Americans.
There's a profound national ideology, which is this belief in democracy and freedom and self-determination and limited government. It's basically a consensus belief; Americans don't see themselves as ideological because everyone believes in this ideology. What's interesting is that Americans are far more ideological than Soviet communists or, say, Chinese communists were. At the end of the Cold War, those countries just discarded their communism. But it would be impossible for Americans to discard their belief in the American way so easily.
How did you decide upon this dichotomy of crusades and quagmires?
If you look at the wars in American history, from the Civil War to the World Wars to Iraq, they all seem quite unique. But there are actually some important patterns about how we experience war, how we think about war. These conflicts don't repeat themselves, but they do rhyme. Basically, for the past 150 years we've liked smashing tyrants, but we've hated dealing with the messy consequences. And so what we see in U.S. history is that wars against enemy countries [including the Confederacy] are seen as crusades for grand majestic objectives like regime change. But nation-building missions where we try to stabilize a conquered land — we tend to see these as quagmires, as disastrous failures. (See ninety years of battlefield portraits.)
And these are themes that are consistent throughout? The face of American might in the 1860s looked very different from how it does today.
America's power position has changed dramatically in the last century and a half. It's gone from a rising power to one of several great powers to one of two to the only great power. And soon it may gain company again with China and India. America's power allows America to launch these crusades — if it was weaker, it would launch fewer — but I'd also say that this pattern has existed for 150 years, when the US was far weaker.
And, of course, technology has changed: the Civil War involves campaigns of stockades and muskets and you look at war today with daisy-cutter bombs and weaponized anthrax and Predator drones. That said, the patterns I talk about tend to hold true even in these profoundly different environments. It hasn't changed the basic American response.
In making your argument about the nature of this response, you invoke George Kennan, the diplomat who authored the U.S.'s containment strategy during the Cold War. He saw the U.S. war machine as some sort of primeval beast.
Kennan, back in the 1950s, felt the U.S. was like a "prehistoric dinosaur." It was slow to spot threats, it would just sit there while threats built up, until at some point it got attacked. Then it would lurch around its environment like a crazed dinosaur, basically destroying its environment. What he calls a raging dinosaur, I may call a zealous crusader. (See pictures of the Cold War's influence on Art: 1945-1970.)
Your chapter on the Spanish-American War provides a handy illustration how crusader efforts get remembered and quagmires are often forgotten. We all know about Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in Cuba, but few remember or talk about the U.S. annexation of the Philippines.
In 1898, we went to war against Spain and the war was all about Cuba. But by the end of the war, the goals had escalated dramatically and we had conquered the Philippines. This was 7,000 islands, 7,000 miles away, and this led to one of America's first nation-building missions, which began as a very bloody counterinsurgency war against Filipino nationalists. There are some very interesting parallels between this war and the war in Iraq. Similar number of Americans dead, about 4,000, as well as accusations of U.S. torture and mistreatment of captives.
The American public very quickly grew weary of the operation. It was engaged in this counterinsurgency that Americans couldn't understand, so far removed from the glorious Spanish-American War — just in the same way counterinsurgency in Iraq was so far removed from the glorious toppling of Saddam. Even the champions of annexing the Philippines, like Theodore Roosevelt, grew disillusioned. He described it as our "heel of Achilles." But we stayed in the Philippines until 1946, and it was a very significant nation-building operation, with some failures and some successes.
You point to the way the founding fathers thought about the military as a kind of antidote to how the U.S. has waged war since the Civil War. Why?
The founding fathers and their initial successors held the opposite view of war to modern Americans. They didn't see wars as crusades; they saw wars as those fought for limited goals — say, against Britain in 1812 and Mexico in 1846. In fact, the founders believed that going on grand crusades could imperil the American project and would be very dangerous. Some were even opposed to having a standing army.
Meanwhile, interestingly, the founders weren't as averse to nation-building as later Americans would be. The early military was building roads, schools and national infrastructure, surveying and mapping the west, giving out humanitarian aid to settlers. And a lot of these broader-type activities — along with others we should celebrate less, like the treatment of Native Americans — went way beyond simply smiting enemy tyrants. While the context is worlds away from today, there's some interesting points of analogy. If the founders built a multipurpose army designed for a wide range of challenges, I think we need our own multipurpose army for our own very different challenges today.
So should the U.S. military don blue helmets and be peacekeepers? Or should it learn to curb its crusader zeal?
The irony of course is that regime change leads directly to nation-building. We need to be more careful about overthrowing tyrants. The flip side of the story is that we need to think about our aversion to nation-building. Think about the Iraq war with Bush and Donald Rumsfeld — they were archcrusaders who wanted to overthrow the Taliban and then get out, overthrow Saddam Hussein and then get out. You throw them out and don't have a plan for what happens next. That's the worst of all worlds.
'Yes Men' claim hoax GE tax press release
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42572015/ns/business-us_business/
General Electric Co., embroiled in controversy over its low 2010 U.S. tax bill, was the subject of a hoax press release claiming it would donate billions of dollars to the federal government.
The "Yes Men," an activist group known for issuing false statements claiming major attitude changes in corporate America on Wednesday sent media outlets an e-mail claiming to be from the largest U.S. conglomerate saying that GE would send its $3.2 billion tax refund from 2010 back to Washington.
"It's a hoax and GE did not receive a refund," said Deirdre Latour, a GE spokeswoman.
The Associated Press on Wednesday had to withdraw a 90-word story it published based on the false press release. The release, which was e-mailed to the AP, included a GE logo and a link to a website designed to look like GE's website. The AP withdrew the story and advised its customers that the story was a hoax.
"The AP did not follow its own standards in this case for verifying the authenticity of a news release," said AP Business Editor Hal Ritter.
The "Yes Men," which in October 2009 staged a phony press conference claiming that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had decided to support climate-change legislation, sent the fake GE release, said Andrew Boyd, who said he was a member of the group.
Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE's tax rate has been in the public eye since the New York Times reported last month that it paid no U.S. income taxes in 2010, a claim that GE denies. GE has acknowledged that its 2010 tax bill was low due to hefty losses at its GE Capital finance unit during the financial crisis.
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt in a March speech in Washington acknowledged that the company tries to keep its tax bill as low as it can but said it does so legally.
"Our tax rate will be higher in 2011," said Immelt, who U.S. President Barack Obama in January named to head a new White House penal aimed at driving jobs growth. "We do it in a compliant way. There are no exceptions."
The "Yes Men" sent the release to draw attention to GE's approach to taxes, Boyd said in a phone interview.
"This is unpatriotic, it's undemocratic, it's unfair," Boyd said. "It might be legal but it's immoral."
(Msnbc.com is a joint-venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal. GE holds minority interest in the latter.)
General Electric Co., embroiled in controversy over its low 2010 U.S. tax bill, was the subject of a hoax press release claiming it would donate billions of dollars to the federal government.
The "Yes Men," an activist group known for issuing false statements claiming major attitude changes in corporate America on Wednesday sent media outlets an e-mail claiming to be from the largest U.S. conglomerate saying that GE would send its $3.2 billion tax refund from 2010 back to Washington.
"It's a hoax and GE did not receive a refund," said Deirdre Latour, a GE spokeswoman.
The Associated Press on Wednesday had to withdraw a 90-word story it published based on the false press release. The release, which was e-mailed to the AP, included a GE logo and a link to a website designed to look like GE's website. The AP withdrew the story and advised its customers that the story was a hoax.
"The AP did not follow its own standards in this case for verifying the authenticity of a news release," said AP Business Editor Hal Ritter.
The "Yes Men," which in October 2009 staged a phony press conference claiming that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had decided to support climate-change legislation, sent the fake GE release, said Andrew Boyd, who said he was a member of the group.
Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE's tax rate has been in the public eye since the New York Times reported last month that it paid no U.S. income taxes in 2010, a claim that GE denies. GE has acknowledged that its 2010 tax bill was low due to hefty losses at its GE Capital finance unit during the financial crisis.
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt in a March speech in Washington acknowledged that the company tries to keep its tax bill as low as it can but said it does so legally.
"Our tax rate will be higher in 2011," said Immelt, who U.S. President Barack Obama in January named to head a new White House penal aimed at driving jobs growth. "We do it in a compliant way. There are no exceptions."
The "Yes Men" sent the release to draw attention to GE's approach to taxes, Boyd said in a phone interview.
"This is unpatriotic, it's undemocratic, it's unfair," Boyd said. "It might be legal but it's immoral."
(Msnbc.com is a joint-venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal. GE holds minority interest in the latter.)
How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/?hpt=Sbin
(CNN) - How did churchgoing, Bible-worshiping Christians justify holding slaves? It’s a question I’ve long had as a Civil War buff and that has new resonance on Tuesday, which marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.
I’ve read books about politics and generals during the war. But I hadn't read much about the religious dimension to the Civil War until I came across a recent USA Today column.
Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.
Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.
Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.
They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
Christian opponents of slavery elevated biblical principles of justice and equality above individual passages that approved exclusion, Brinton says.
He wonders if a new biblical approach is needed today, as people grapple with polarizing issues like gay marriage.
Opponents of gay marriage, Brinton notes, follow a literal approach to the Bible when they cite Old Testament passages that declare, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
He wonders if gay marriage foes are making the same mistake as defenders of slavery:
But perhaps reproduction is no longer the goal of every person and every marriage. Many couples choose not to have children, or marry late in life when they are unable to produce children. The New Testament values of faithfulness, love, sacrifice and promise-based commitment can be practiced by heterosexual couples without children — and by same-sex couples as well. Discussions of gay marriage can focus as much on scriptural equality as on the ability to reproduce.
At the same time, Brinton says liberal Christians may be making their own mistakes with their approach to the Bible:
Liberals also use Scripture for their purposes, citing commandments such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) whenever a war breaks out or the death penalty is being debated. But the commandment is actually a prohibition against murder, arising out of blood feuds and vengeance killings between ancient clans and families. A literal reading of this verse does not give us the moral and political guidance we need today.
Brinton says Abraham Lincoln offered the most constructive religious perspective during the Civil War. "My concern is not whether God is on our side," he said. "My greatest concern is to be on God's side."
What do you think? Is it fair to invoke the Bible for political causes?
(CNN) - How did churchgoing, Bible-worshiping Christians justify holding slaves? It’s a question I’ve long had as a Civil War buff and that has new resonance on Tuesday, which marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.
I’ve read books about politics and generals during the war. But I hadn't read much about the religious dimension to the Civil War until I came across a recent USA Today column.
Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.
Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.
Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.
They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
Christian opponents of slavery elevated biblical principles of justice and equality above individual passages that approved exclusion, Brinton says.
He wonders if a new biblical approach is needed today, as people grapple with polarizing issues like gay marriage.
Opponents of gay marriage, Brinton notes, follow a literal approach to the Bible when they cite Old Testament passages that declare, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
He wonders if gay marriage foes are making the same mistake as defenders of slavery:
But perhaps reproduction is no longer the goal of every person and every marriage. Many couples choose not to have children, or marry late in life when they are unable to produce children. The New Testament values of faithfulness, love, sacrifice and promise-based commitment can be practiced by heterosexual couples without children — and by same-sex couples as well. Discussions of gay marriage can focus as much on scriptural equality as on the ability to reproduce.
At the same time, Brinton says liberal Christians may be making their own mistakes with their approach to the Bible:
Liberals also use Scripture for their purposes, citing commandments such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) whenever a war breaks out or the death penalty is being debated. But the commandment is actually a prohibition against murder, arising out of blood feuds and vengeance killings between ancient clans and families. A literal reading of this verse does not give us the moral and political guidance we need today.
Brinton says Abraham Lincoln offered the most constructive religious perspective during the Civil War. "My concern is not whether God is on our side," he said. "My greatest concern is to be on God's side."
What do you think? Is it fair to invoke the Bible for political causes?
Study: Prisons failing to deter repeat criminals in 41 states
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-12-Prison-recidivism-rates-hold-steady.htm
The number of inmates returning to state prisons within three years of release has remained steady for more than a decade, a strong indicator that prison systems are failing to deter criminals from re-offending, a new study has concluded.
In one of the most comprehensive reports of its kind, the Pew Center on the States found that slightly more than four in 10 offenders return to prison within three years, a collective rate that has remained largely unchanged in years, despite huge increases in prison spending that now costs states $52 billion annually.
National recidivism, or return, rates are holding steady even as state officials have launched programs to help prisoners re-enter society and as the recent financial crisis has forced states to cut their budgets and re-evaluate the types of offenders who should return to prison.
The number of inmates returning to state prisons within three years of release has remained steady for more than a decade, a strong indicator that prison systems are failing to deter criminals from re-offending, a new study has concluded.
In one of the most comprehensive reports of its kind, the Pew Center on the States found that slightly more than four in 10 offenders return to prison within three years, a collective rate that has remained largely unchanged in years, despite huge increases in prison spending that now costs states $52 billion annually.
National recidivism, or return, rates are holding steady even as state officials have launched programs to help prisoners re-enter society and as the recent financial crisis has forced states to cut their budgets and re-evaluate the types of offenders who should return to prison.
Former Sen. Alan Simpson: ‘We have homophobes in our party’
I'm *shocked*.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/former-sen-alan-simpson-we-have-homphobes-in-our-party/2011/04/12/AFXpy9OD_blog.html?wpisrc=xs_sl_0001
Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming known for being an outspoken centrist, laid into his party on Monday during an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, criticizing conservative Republicans’ position on abortion and homosexuality.
“Who the hell is for abortion?” said Simpson.“I don’t know anybody running around with a sign that says ‘have an abortion, they’re wonderful.’ They’re hideous. But they’re a deeply intimate and personal decision and I don’t think men legislators should even vote on the issue.”
“Then you’ve got homosexuality — you’ve got ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” said Simpson, “We’ve got homphobes in our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings, we’re all God’s children.”
Simpson went on, criticizing former senator and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) for saying “some cruel things — cruel, cruel things about homosexuals.”
“If that’s the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket — you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, ‘stick with your folks,’ but I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women — moral values, while you’re diddling your secretary, while you’re giving a speech on moral values. Come on, get off of it.”
Simpson’s comments come days after an agreement was struck over the federal budget for fiscal year 2011. The heated debate preceding the agreement included an attempt by Republicans to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The provision was ultimately dropped from the final agreement — a concession Republicans made in exchange for Democrats agreeing to $38 billion in spending cuts.
This is not the first time Simpson, who served as a co-chair on President Obama’s Fiscal Commission, has criticized his party. Simpson was ousted from his position as the party’s assistant leader in the Senate after he was criticized for not being sufficiently conservative. In an interview with NPR, Simpson said, “I've been a Republican all my life, you'll never throw me out, but they have an amazing ability to eat their young where they give each other the saliva test of purity every once in a while and then they lose and then they just sit around and bitch for four years and it's a fairly fascinating party.”
Simpson came under fire in August when he compared Social Security to “a milk cow with 201 million tits.” The National Older Women’s League (OWL) launched a petition calling for Simpson to be removed from the Fiscal commission, calling his comments “offensive and sexist.” Simpson later apologized for the letter, written in response to a column by OWL Executive Director Ashley Carson. But in an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union in February, Simpson took an opportunity to “clarify” his remarks saying, “I meant to say that America was a milk cow with 300 million tits, not social security.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/former-sen-alan-simpson-we-have-homphobes-in-our-party/2011/04/12/AFXpy9OD_blog.html?wpisrc=xs_sl_0001
Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming known for being an outspoken centrist, laid into his party on Monday during an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, criticizing conservative Republicans’ position on abortion and homosexuality.
“Who the hell is for abortion?” said Simpson.“I don’t know anybody running around with a sign that says ‘have an abortion, they’re wonderful.’ They’re hideous. But they’re a deeply intimate and personal decision and I don’t think men legislators should even vote on the issue.”
“Then you’ve got homosexuality — you’ve got ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” said Simpson, “We’ve got homphobes in our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings, we’re all God’s children.”
Simpson went on, criticizing former senator and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) for saying “some cruel things — cruel, cruel things about homosexuals.”
“If that’s the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket — you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, ‘stick with your folks,’ but I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women — moral values, while you’re diddling your secretary, while you’re giving a speech on moral values. Come on, get off of it.”
Simpson’s comments come days after an agreement was struck over the federal budget for fiscal year 2011. The heated debate preceding the agreement included an attempt by Republicans to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The provision was ultimately dropped from the final agreement — a concession Republicans made in exchange for Democrats agreeing to $38 billion in spending cuts.
This is not the first time Simpson, who served as a co-chair on President Obama’s Fiscal Commission, has criticized his party. Simpson was ousted from his position as the party’s assistant leader in the Senate after he was criticized for not being sufficiently conservative. In an interview with NPR, Simpson said, “I've been a Republican all my life, you'll never throw me out, but they have an amazing ability to eat their young where they give each other the saliva test of purity every once in a while and then they lose and then they just sit around and bitch for four years and it's a fairly fascinating party.”
Simpson came under fire in August when he compared Social Security to “a milk cow with 201 million tits.” The National Older Women’s League (OWL) launched a petition calling for Simpson to be removed from the Fiscal commission, calling his comments “offensive and sexist.” Simpson later apologized for the letter, written in response to a column by OWL Executive Director Ashley Carson. But in an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union in February, Simpson took an opportunity to “clarify” his remarks saying, “I meant to say that America was a milk cow with 300 million tits, not social security.”
Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209
After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.
Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.
Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter’s web site, Shadowstats.com.
“Near-term circumstances generally have continued to deteriorate,” said John Williams, creator of the site, in a new note out Tuesday. “Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem. Until such time as financial-market expectations catch up with underlying reality, reporting generally will continue to show higher-than-expected inflation and weaker-than-expected economic results in the month and months ahead.”
The pay-site and newsletter by Williams, an economic consultant for the last 30 years to companies, has gained a cult following among bloggers hungry to criticize Bernanke these days. The mission statement of the newsletter, according to the site, is to expose and analyze “flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting…net of financial-market and political hype.”
Investors are anxiously awaiting the release of March’s CPI reading on Friday. The consensus estimate from economists is for an annual inflation rate of 2.6 percent.
“Given ongoing inflation problems with food and the spreading impact of higher oil-related costs in the broad economy, reporting risk is to the upside of consensus expectation,” said Williams, citing a 10 percent jump in gasoline prices in March, in the note.
“While the federal government would have us believe the numbers are rather tame, our own personal gauge leads us to believe inflation is running between 5 percent to 6 percent annually,” wrote Alan Newman in his latest Crosscurrents newsletter that refers to Williams’ statistics.
Newman uses recent comments from Walmart CEO Bill Simon that inflation is going to be “serious” to back up the much higher CPI figures from him and Williams.
“Given Walmart’s [WMT 53.80 0.28 (+0.52%) ] sales of $422 billion, we think Mr. Simon has a good idea of what’s in the pipeline,” said Newman.
To be sure, the BLS argues that the changes it has made over the last three decades more accurately reflect a true change in the cost of living. For example, in response to its hedonic adjustments, the BLS web site states, “to measure price change accurately, the CPI must be able to distinguish the portion of price change due to this quality change.
Still, going by recent strong comments from Federal Reserve officials, even members of the central bank must believe inflation is being underreported. Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher said in a speech last week that the central bank was reaching a “tipping point” as far as changing its policy so it can react to inflation. Maybe Fisher stumbled across Shadowstats.com. The voting member did, after all, mention Volcker in the same speech.
“The need to break the back of that (budgetary debt) spiral is as dire now as was the need for Paul Volcker to break the back of inflation in the 1980s,” said Fisher on April 8th. “As a result of his steadfast determination to press on with exorcising inflation, Mr. Volcker is today among the most respected living Americans and widely considered an exemplar for public servants worldwide.”
After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.
Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.
Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter’s web site, Shadowstats.com.
“Near-term circumstances generally have continued to deteriorate,” said John Williams, creator of the site, in a new note out Tuesday. “Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem. Until such time as financial-market expectations catch up with underlying reality, reporting generally will continue to show higher-than-expected inflation and weaker-than-expected economic results in the month and months ahead.”
The pay-site and newsletter by Williams, an economic consultant for the last 30 years to companies, has gained a cult following among bloggers hungry to criticize Bernanke these days. The mission statement of the newsletter, according to the site, is to expose and analyze “flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting…net of financial-market and political hype.”
Investors are anxiously awaiting the release of March’s CPI reading on Friday. The consensus estimate from economists is for an annual inflation rate of 2.6 percent.
“Given ongoing inflation problems with food and the spreading impact of higher oil-related costs in the broad economy, reporting risk is to the upside of consensus expectation,” said Williams, citing a 10 percent jump in gasoline prices in March, in the note.
“While the federal government would have us believe the numbers are rather tame, our own personal gauge leads us to believe inflation is running between 5 percent to 6 percent annually,” wrote Alan Newman in his latest Crosscurrents newsletter that refers to Williams’ statistics.
Newman uses recent comments from Walmart CEO Bill Simon that inflation is going to be “serious” to back up the much higher CPI figures from him and Williams.
“Given Walmart’s [WMT 53.80 0.28 (+0.52%) ] sales of $422 billion, we think Mr. Simon has a good idea of what’s in the pipeline,” said Newman.
To be sure, the BLS argues that the changes it has made over the last three decades more accurately reflect a true change in the cost of living. For example, in response to its hedonic adjustments, the BLS web site states, “to measure price change accurately, the CPI must be able to distinguish the portion of price change due to this quality change.
Still, going by recent strong comments from Federal Reserve officials, even members of the central bank must believe inflation is being underreported. Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher said in a speech last week that the central bank was reaching a “tipping point” as far as changing its policy so it can react to inflation. Maybe Fisher stumbled across Shadowstats.com. The voting member did, after all, mention Volcker in the same speech.
“The need to break the back of that (budgetary debt) spiral is as dire now as was the need for Paul Volcker to break the back of inflation in the 1980s,” said Fisher on April 8th. “As a result of his steadfast determination to press on with exorcising inflation, Mr. Volcker is today among the most respected living Americans and widely considered an exemplar for public servants worldwide.”
New $5 ATM fee just the latest checking trap
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/03/total-checking-value-checking-myaccess-checking-what-do-they-all-have-in-common-the-word-free-is-decidedly-missing-from-t.html
"Total Checking." "Value Checking." "MyAccess Checking." What do they all have in common? The word "free" is missing from the name.
You are likely painfully aware that big banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America have ended no-strings-attached free checking accounts. But if you had any questions about how restrictive -- or expensive -- those strings can be, consider Chase bank. Scarcely two years ago, we marveled at banks’ efforts to inch fees up to $3 per withdrawal. Chase bank is now test-piloting $5-per-withdrawal fees for non-customers in Illinois. That's in addition to fees the consumers' bank charges. Soon it may cost $10 to grab $20 in a pinch.
Once upon a time, consumers could expect to earn money by leaving their cash sitting in a bank. Today, consumers must worry about their bank slowly bleeding money out of the account. The change is happening swiftly. Chase says it's converted around 8 million free accounts -- many former customers of Washington Mutual -- into "follow-our-rules-or-pay-up-to-$144-annually" accounts.
It costs banks about $300 apiece annually to offer checking accounts, according to a recent study by Bretton-Woods. They used to recoup these costs by helping themselves to some $30 billion worth of overdraft fees from consumers. But now that the cash cow has been largely eliminated by new consumer regulations, banks are trying out new techniques to recoup this lost revenue.
Just how far will banks be able to push fee-weary consumers? That's unclear. Earlier this month, Bankrate.com released a survey showing 75 percent of consumers earning $75,000 or more would rather switch banks than pay higher fees. Overall, 64 percent of customers said they'd bolt.
That ire may not translate into action, however, and banks know it. A J.D. Power study released on March 1 found that, while consumers are switching banks at a slightly higher rate than in the past (8.7 percent last year, compared to 7.7 percent a year earlier), fees and interest rates have almost nothing to do with their choices. "Pricing" impacted only 4 percent of consumers, the study found.
This would not be a surprise to behavioral economists. Consumers almost never consider fees -- particularly punitive fees like overdrafts or "your balance fell below $1,000" charges -- when making purchase decisions. Nearly everyone suffers from what's sometimes called "magical thinking" -- as in, "I'll never misbehave and get hit by that fee."
It's the shallow things that matter
So what do people consider when switching banks? Big, impressive buildings and billboards seemed to matter most, the survey found. Here’s the depressing quote from the JD Power press release:
"For customers evaluating and ultimately selecting a new bank, the most important factors driving their decision are advertising; branch convenience; products and services; promotional offers; and direct and indirect customer experience," it said.
That means you can expect higher fees, more buildings and more kooky ads from banks.
There was one positive note in the J.D. Power research. There is evidence consumers do have their limits. About 17 percent of consumers who switched banks said high fees or low interest motivated the breakup.
Banks argue that it's not fair to say free checking has disappeared. OK. Let’s just say NSA relationships with big banks are dead, replaced It's by accounts wrapped in red tape. And remember, many of these rules can change at any time. So here's five Red Tape Traps you’ll find along the way to a free checking account.
1) Soaring ATM fees
We've already mentioned Chase's $5 experiment. Plenty of folks now pay $6 or $7 per withdrawal, when the ATM machine fee is added to their own bank's fee. These fees are perhaps the best example of magical thinking at work. Most folks think they'll be good about walking the extra block to access cash at their bank's ATM. But when there's a screaming kid in a stroller or an impatient date on the arm, you're likely to just pay the fee. Even one so-called "foreign" ATM transaction with a $5 hit every month costs $60 annually. Be realistic: If your bank charges for such transactions, you should just budget $100 annually for ATM service. But a much better choice is to find a bank that doesn't charge you. For those ATM emergencies, you'll at least cut your ATM fees in half, and some banks -- USAA Federal Savings Bank, for example -- refund the ATM bank’s fees. There's no law preventing you from getting a secondary checking account with a new institution that you use primarily for accessing cash on the fly. I recommend this kind of "allowance" account structure in Stop Getting Ripped Off.
A few other creative efforts can cut your ATM fees. Get cash back when you shop at grocery stores with your debit card, although that's not my favorite way to use debit. Better yet: Find fee-free ATMs. They're out there. The WaWa convenience store chain offers them, and it recently performed its one billionth fee-free cash withdrawal.
What it costs: Two “foreign” withdrawals per month -- $120
2) Keeping your minimum balance
Most account holders are familiar with the idea that they might have to do something -- maintain a minimum balance or direct deposit their paychecks -- in order to keep some level of service.
But now, a single slip-up, such as a flurry of cashed checks that sink your balance to $998.43 for one afternoon, can be costly. With fees of $12 or more, the experience is not unlike getting hit with an overdraft. The same advice you followed to prevent overdrafts applies here. Some banks let you link your savings and checking accounts to make sure you don't dip below that minimum. Sign up for text message alerts so you can get early notification of a dangerously low balance, and log on to online banking to check your balance often. Stagger your regular payments so they hit after your paychecks.
The biggest Red Tape Trap of all, however, is the dreaded movable minimum balance. Consumers who once enjoyed fee waivers for keeping $500 in an account can see that minimum raised to $750 or $1,000. It's easy to miss a warning letter from the bank, and end up with one or two months of $12 fees. The clearest hint a balance change is coming is an account name change (see below).
What it costs: Two slip-ups -- $24
3) Overdraft fee marketing
The voracious overdraft fee animal isn't gone, it's just been put back in its cage. Until recently, consumers could incur $35 overdraft fees by making small purchases with their debit cards. Today, those transactions are simply declined by the bank, or approved without the fee -- unless the bank has received explicit opt-in permission from the account holder. Banks have driven hard to trick consumers into giving up this permission, which is inappropriate for the vast amount of consumers. They've given it pleasing sounding names like "courtesy pay," "Buffer Zone," or "debit card advance," and plastered bank windows with pictures of smiling, attractive men and women who say they are relieved to have this peace of mind. If you've been tricked into signing up for overdraft protection, un-sign up immediately.
What it costs: Two overdrafts -- $70
4) The name has changed
The surest sign a new fee or restriction is coming is a name change -- either the name of your bank has changed because of an acquisition (like Washington Mutual becoming Chase) or the name of your account has been changed. Former Washington Mutual customers have seen their account names changed from “WaMu Free Checking” to “Chase Free Extra Checking” to “Chase Total Checking,” which is totally more expensive than free. Ironically, a Google search for Washington Mutual still sends consumers to a Web page at Chase.com with the title "WaMu.com, home of WaMu Free Checking, is now Chase."
Chase customers can avoid checking fees through a variety of methods -- maintaining a minimum daily balance, a high average balance, making at least one large direct deposit, or by paying a bunch of other fees.
The amounts required -- at least one $500 deposit -- aren't Draconian, but the rules mean consumers have a lot of new things to keep track of. They will slip up, and pay. And of course, the rules can and will change. Beware the notice that you've just been upgraded to "Complete Awesome Checking" or “Value Asset Acquisition Checking." You almost certainly are about to be hit with a new fee or rule.
What it costs: Two mistakes -- $24
5) The hidden cost of no interest
Of course, requiring a minimum balance of $1,500 or so is itself a fee. That's money you could park in a high-yielding money market account earning interest. Even a 1 percent interest rate would get you a smidge more than $15 on your $1,500, so that kind of minimum requirement amounts to a $15 annual fee.
What it costs: Missed interest -- $15
TOTAL TRAP COST: $253 annually.
This entire column has been a not-so-subtle suggestion that you consider banking alternatives. Online banks like ING Direct offer higher interest and fewer fees. Credit unions and small banks still offer really free checking. In fact, BankRate.com just released a survey showing 38 of the 50 largest credit unions have free checking with no strings attached, and about half of them don't even require a minimum balance. Their ATM fees are, on average, half of traditional bank fees and one-quarter of the large credit unions charge no ATM fees at all.
That means there's no reason not to open a credit union account, even if it merely serves as a secondary checking account.
"Total Checking." "Value Checking." "MyAccess Checking." What do they all have in common? The word "free" is missing from the name.
You are likely painfully aware that big banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America have ended no-strings-attached free checking accounts. But if you had any questions about how restrictive -- or expensive -- those strings can be, consider Chase bank. Scarcely two years ago, we marveled at banks’ efforts to inch fees up to $3 per withdrawal. Chase bank is now test-piloting $5-per-withdrawal fees for non-customers in Illinois. That's in addition to fees the consumers' bank charges. Soon it may cost $10 to grab $20 in a pinch.
Once upon a time, consumers could expect to earn money by leaving their cash sitting in a bank. Today, consumers must worry about their bank slowly bleeding money out of the account. The change is happening swiftly. Chase says it's converted around 8 million free accounts -- many former customers of Washington Mutual -- into "follow-our-rules-or-pay-up-to-$144-annually" accounts.
It costs banks about $300 apiece annually to offer checking accounts, according to a recent study by Bretton-Woods. They used to recoup these costs by helping themselves to some $30 billion worth of overdraft fees from consumers. But now that the cash cow has been largely eliminated by new consumer regulations, banks are trying out new techniques to recoup this lost revenue.
Just how far will banks be able to push fee-weary consumers? That's unclear. Earlier this month, Bankrate.com released a survey showing 75 percent of consumers earning $75,000 or more would rather switch banks than pay higher fees. Overall, 64 percent of customers said they'd bolt.
That ire may not translate into action, however, and banks know it. A J.D. Power study released on March 1 found that, while consumers are switching banks at a slightly higher rate than in the past (8.7 percent last year, compared to 7.7 percent a year earlier), fees and interest rates have almost nothing to do with their choices. "Pricing" impacted only 4 percent of consumers, the study found.
This would not be a surprise to behavioral economists. Consumers almost never consider fees -- particularly punitive fees like overdrafts or "your balance fell below $1,000" charges -- when making purchase decisions. Nearly everyone suffers from what's sometimes called "magical thinking" -- as in, "I'll never misbehave and get hit by that fee."
It's the shallow things that matter
So what do people consider when switching banks? Big, impressive buildings and billboards seemed to matter most, the survey found. Here’s the depressing quote from the JD Power press release:
"For customers evaluating and ultimately selecting a new bank, the most important factors driving their decision are advertising; branch convenience; products and services; promotional offers; and direct and indirect customer experience," it said.
That means you can expect higher fees, more buildings and more kooky ads from banks.
There was one positive note in the J.D. Power research. There is evidence consumers do have their limits. About 17 percent of consumers who switched banks said high fees or low interest motivated the breakup.
Banks argue that it's not fair to say free checking has disappeared. OK. Let’s just say NSA relationships with big banks are dead, replaced It's by accounts wrapped in red tape. And remember, many of these rules can change at any time. So here's five Red Tape Traps you’ll find along the way to a free checking account.
1) Soaring ATM fees
We've already mentioned Chase's $5 experiment. Plenty of folks now pay $6 or $7 per withdrawal, when the ATM machine fee is added to their own bank's fee. These fees are perhaps the best example of magical thinking at work. Most folks think they'll be good about walking the extra block to access cash at their bank's ATM. But when there's a screaming kid in a stroller or an impatient date on the arm, you're likely to just pay the fee. Even one so-called "foreign" ATM transaction with a $5 hit every month costs $60 annually. Be realistic: If your bank charges for such transactions, you should just budget $100 annually for ATM service. But a much better choice is to find a bank that doesn't charge you. For those ATM emergencies, you'll at least cut your ATM fees in half, and some banks -- USAA Federal Savings Bank, for example -- refund the ATM bank’s fees. There's no law preventing you from getting a secondary checking account with a new institution that you use primarily for accessing cash on the fly. I recommend this kind of "allowance" account structure in Stop Getting Ripped Off.
A few other creative efforts can cut your ATM fees. Get cash back when you shop at grocery stores with your debit card, although that's not my favorite way to use debit. Better yet: Find fee-free ATMs. They're out there. The WaWa convenience store chain offers them, and it recently performed its one billionth fee-free cash withdrawal.
What it costs: Two “foreign” withdrawals per month -- $120
2) Keeping your minimum balance
Most account holders are familiar with the idea that they might have to do something -- maintain a minimum balance or direct deposit their paychecks -- in order to keep some level of service.
But now, a single slip-up, such as a flurry of cashed checks that sink your balance to $998.43 for one afternoon, can be costly. With fees of $12 or more, the experience is not unlike getting hit with an overdraft. The same advice you followed to prevent overdrafts applies here. Some banks let you link your savings and checking accounts to make sure you don't dip below that minimum. Sign up for text message alerts so you can get early notification of a dangerously low balance, and log on to online banking to check your balance often. Stagger your regular payments so they hit after your paychecks.
The biggest Red Tape Trap of all, however, is the dreaded movable minimum balance. Consumers who once enjoyed fee waivers for keeping $500 in an account can see that minimum raised to $750 or $1,000. It's easy to miss a warning letter from the bank, and end up with one or two months of $12 fees. The clearest hint a balance change is coming is an account name change (see below).
What it costs: Two slip-ups -- $24
3) Overdraft fee marketing
The voracious overdraft fee animal isn't gone, it's just been put back in its cage. Until recently, consumers could incur $35 overdraft fees by making small purchases with their debit cards. Today, those transactions are simply declined by the bank, or approved without the fee -- unless the bank has received explicit opt-in permission from the account holder. Banks have driven hard to trick consumers into giving up this permission, which is inappropriate for the vast amount of consumers. They've given it pleasing sounding names like "courtesy pay," "Buffer Zone," or "debit card advance," and plastered bank windows with pictures of smiling, attractive men and women who say they are relieved to have this peace of mind. If you've been tricked into signing up for overdraft protection, un-sign up immediately.
What it costs: Two overdrafts -- $70
4) The name has changed
The surest sign a new fee or restriction is coming is a name change -- either the name of your bank has changed because of an acquisition (like Washington Mutual becoming Chase) or the name of your account has been changed. Former Washington Mutual customers have seen their account names changed from “WaMu Free Checking” to “Chase Free Extra Checking” to “Chase Total Checking,” which is totally more expensive than free. Ironically, a Google search for Washington Mutual still sends consumers to a Web page at Chase.com with the title "WaMu.com, home of WaMu Free Checking, is now Chase."
Chase customers can avoid checking fees through a variety of methods -- maintaining a minimum daily balance, a high average balance, making at least one large direct deposit, or by paying a bunch of other fees.
The amounts required -- at least one $500 deposit -- aren't Draconian, but the rules mean consumers have a lot of new things to keep track of. They will slip up, and pay. And of course, the rules can and will change. Beware the notice that you've just been upgraded to "Complete Awesome Checking" or “Value Asset Acquisition Checking." You almost certainly are about to be hit with a new fee or rule.
What it costs: Two mistakes -- $24
5) The hidden cost of no interest
Of course, requiring a minimum balance of $1,500 or so is itself a fee. That's money you could park in a high-yielding money market account earning interest. Even a 1 percent interest rate would get you a smidge more than $15 on your $1,500, so that kind of minimum requirement amounts to a $15 annual fee.
What it costs: Missed interest -- $15
TOTAL TRAP COST: $253 annually.
This entire column has been a not-so-subtle suggestion that you consider banking alternatives. Online banks like ING Direct offer higher interest and fewer fees. Credit unions and small banks still offer really free checking. In fact, BankRate.com just released a survey showing 38 of the 50 largest credit unions have free checking with no strings attached, and about half of them don't even require a minimum balance. Their ATM fees are, on average, half of traditional bank fees and one-quarter of the large credit unions charge no ATM fees at all.
That means there's no reason not to open a credit union account, even if it merely serves as a secondary checking account.
Texas: Personal Data Posted Accidentally
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/us/12brfs-PERSONALDATA_BRF.html?_r=2
Social Security numbers, birthdates and other information of about 3.5 million residents have been accidentally posted on computer servers, the state comptroller, Susan Combs, said Monday. Most of the information, including some driver’s license numbers, was available for more than a year. Ms. Combs said the information included data transferred by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission and the Employees Retirement System of Texas. She said that there was no indication any information was misused.
Social Security numbers, birthdates and other information of about 3.5 million residents have been accidentally posted on computer servers, the state comptroller, Susan Combs, said Monday. Most of the information, including some driver’s license numbers, was available for more than a year. Ms. Combs said the information included data transferred by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission and the Employees Retirement System of Texas. She said that there was no indication any information was misused.
TSA: Proper procedures followed in child's pat-down
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/12/tsa.pat.down/index.html?hpt=Sbin
(CNN) -- An officer who conducted a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl in the New Orleans airport last week "followed proper current screening procedures," the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.
However, the agency said it is exploring ways to "focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security."
Video of the April 5 incident was posted on the internet sharing site YouTube. In it, the girl is seen getting patted down by a female TSA officer.
The child was patted down in order to resolve an issue that arose when she went through an advanced imaging technology, or body imaging machine, a TSA official said.
"TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that this officer followed proper current screening procedures," TSA said in a statement. "However, in line with his vision to accelerate TSA's evolution into a truly risk-based, intelligence-driven organization, Administrator (John) Pistole has tasked the agency with exploring additional ways to focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security.
(CNN) -- An officer who conducted a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl in the New Orleans airport last week "followed proper current screening procedures," the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.
However, the agency said it is exploring ways to "focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security."
Video of the April 5 incident was posted on the internet sharing site YouTube. In it, the girl is seen getting patted down by a female TSA officer.
The child was patted down in order to resolve an issue that arose when she went through an advanced imaging technology, or body imaging machine, a TSA official said.
"TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that this officer followed proper current screening procedures," TSA said in a statement. "However, in line with his vision to accelerate TSA's evolution into a truly risk-based, intelligence-driven organization, Administrator (John) Pistole has tasked the agency with exploring additional ways to focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
4 ways we're still fighting the Civil War
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/index.html?hpt=C1
CNN -- He stood 5-foot-8 and weighed 145 pounds. His face was gaunt and sunburned. Ticks, fleas and lice covered his body.
Before battle, his lips would quiver and his body went numb. When the shooting started, some of his comrades burst into maniacal laughter. Others bit the throat and ears of their enemy. And some were shattered by shells so powerful that tufts of their hair stuck to rocks and trees.
Take a tour of a Civil War battlefield today, and it's difficult to connect the terrifying experience of an average Civil War soldier -- described above from various historical accounts -- with the tranquil historic sites where we now snap pictures today.
But you don't have to tour a battlefield to understand the Civil War. Look at today's headlines. As the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of its deadliest war this week, some historians say we're still fighting over some of the same issues that fueled the Civil War.
"There are all of these weird parallels," says Stephanie McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," a new book that examines why Southerners seceded and its effect on Southern women and slaves.
"When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.
"Living history" on Civil War battlefields
These "weird parallels" go beyond the familiar debates over what caused the war, slavery or states' rights. They extend to issues that seem to have nothing to do with the Civil War.
The shutdown of the federal government, war in Libya, the furor over the new health care law and Guantanamo Bay -- all have tentacles that reach back to the Civil War, historians say.
They point to four parallels:
The disappearance of the political center
If you think the culture wars are heated now, check out mid-19th century America. The Civil War took place during a period of pervasive piety when both North and South demonized one another with self-righteous, biblical language, one historian says.
The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.
They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.
Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political process" because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because "how do you compromise with sin."
"By transforming political issues into moral causes, you raise the stakes of the conflict and you tend to demonize your opponents," Goldfield says.
Contemporary political rhetoric is filled with similar rhetoric. Opponents aren't just wrong -- they're sinners, Goldfield says.
"The erosion of the center in contemporary American politics is the most striking parallel between today and the time just before the Civil War," Goldfield says.
In the lead-up to the war, political campaigns were filled with religious fervor. Political parties paraded their piety and labeled opponents infidels.
"Today's government gridlock results, in part, from this religious mind set that many issues can be divided into good and evil and sin and salvation," he says.
How much power should the federal government have?
Nullification, states' rights and secession. Those terms might sound like they're lifted from a Civil War history book, but they're actually making a comeback on the national stage today.
Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.
It was the kind of talk that led to the Civil War, historians say.
"One of the biggest debates during the Civil War was how far should governments go in dictating our lives. We still debate those politics," says William Blair, director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center at Pennsylvania State University.
The Southern answer to that question ignited the war. When they seceded, their leaders said that they were protecting the inherent rights of sovereign states. They invoked the 13 Colonies' fight for independence.
H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the Founding Fathers' belief that the Colonies were free and independent states.
"If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, are American heroes.
"Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
Slavery caused the war, says McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," and most historians.
Southern slaveholders invoked the Revolution while trying to build an antidemocratic slave state "dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal," McCurry says.
They also didn't want to lose the tremendous wealth generated by slave labor, she says.
"They felt confident because they were the biggest producers of cotton in the Western world at the height of the Industrial Revolution."
Unleashing the dogs of war
During the run-up to the Iraq War, former Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared that American troops would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.
Cheney made the mistake that political leaders have been making for ages -- he didn't know the enemy, says Emory Thomas, author of "The Dogs of War," which examines how ignorance on both sides led to the Civil War.
"Cheney thought it was going to be France in 1944, but it ended up Georgia in 1864," Thomas says.
Civil War leaders made the same mistake, Thomas says. Northern leaders like Lincoln didn't really think ordinary Southerners who had no slaves would fight in defense of slavery. Southerners didn't think Northerners were willing to go to war to preserve the Union, he says.
And few on both sides expected the war to be so bloody and long.
"America in 1861 didn't realize what the hell they were doing," he says. "They just weren't willing to think of unpleasant possibilities."
We risk the same mistakes when we commit to "limited" military campaigns in places such as Iraq and, most recently, Libya, Thomas says.
When President Obama announced a limited air bombing campaign in Libya, Thomas thought about the political leaders before the Civil War.
Each incrementally committed to various military provocations, thinking events wouldn't spiral out of control. They were wrong.
"Once you commit to war, you don't have any control over how it ends," Thomas says. "It's amazing how that sounds like Libya now. We may blunder into success, but we don't know who these guys (Libyan rebels) are."
The president as dictator
Barack Obama isn't the first black president, according to some Southern secessionists. That would be Abraham Lincoln. He was called a "black Republican" and the "Great Dictator."
There was a reason a large number of Americans despised Lincoln during the war. Think of the nation's recent "War on Terror." Some Americans thought Lincoln used the war to ignore the Constitution and expand the powers of the presidency.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (it gives a person who is jailed the right to challenge their detention in court) during the war and used military courts to arrests thousands of civilians.
Those legal decisions loom over post-9/11 America, historians say.
How do we treat American citizens caught attempting to bomb U.S. cities? How do we clamp down on American citizens who preach overthrowing the government? What rights do Guantanamo Bay prisoners possess?
"It's not just what does a president do against an enemy," says Blair, the Civil War historian. "It's what do you do against your own citizens to determine loyalty. That's a big debate today."
Lincoln skillfully addressed that debate, says Brian McGinty, author of "Lincoln & the Court."
He says Lincoln confronted unprecedented problems: The South was in rebellion, the nation's capital was in real danger from rebels in Virginia and their sympathizers in Maryland.
At one point, a mob blocked passage of Northern troops through Maryland to defend Washington.
"His oath of office required him to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' and he believed that the best way to do that was to preserve the Union," McGinty says. "What good would the Constitution be if the country itself was lost?"
McGinty doesn't think Lincoln became a dictator. He says he allowed the presidential election to take place in 1864. He worked with Congress. He asked military officers to arrest disloyal persons sparingly, and he never tolerated abuse of prisoners.
Lincoln said his actions would ultimately be subject to the review of the American people, not the courts, McGinty says.
"He called the people 'The Great Tribunal' and said that they would have the final word on constitutional issues. In the end, The Great Tribunal approved of what he had done. So, for the most part, has history."
The Great Tribunal, however, has yet to render a unanimous verdict on the Civil War.
A century-and-a-half after the war ended, people still clash over the causes and meaning.
Blair says they still clash because the war doesn't fit many Americans' image of themselves or their past.
"The American story of our past has been a hopeful, helpful narrative," he says. "But it's hard for us to understand that there was a time in this country when the Constitution protected slavery, and it was actually legal.
"How do you insert the story of slavery into that?"
CNN -- He stood 5-foot-8 and weighed 145 pounds. His face was gaunt and sunburned. Ticks, fleas and lice covered his body.
Before battle, his lips would quiver and his body went numb. When the shooting started, some of his comrades burst into maniacal laughter. Others bit the throat and ears of their enemy. And some were shattered by shells so powerful that tufts of their hair stuck to rocks and trees.
Take a tour of a Civil War battlefield today, and it's difficult to connect the terrifying experience of an average Civil War soldier -- described above from various historical accounts -- with the tranquil historic sites where we now snap pictures today.
But you don't have to tour a battlefield to understand the Civil War. Look at today's headlines. As the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of its deadliest war this week, some historians say we're still fighting over some of the same issues that fueled the Civil War.
"There are all of these weird parallels," says Stephanie McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," a new book that examines why Southerners seceded and its effect on Southern women and slaves.
"When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.
"Living history" on Civil War battlefields
These "weird parallels" go beyond the familiar debates over what caused the war, slavery or states' rights. They extend to issues that seem to have nothing to do with the Civil War.
The shutdown of the federal government, war in Libya, the furor over the new health care law and Guantanamo Bay -- all have tentacles that reach back to the Civil War, historians say.
They point to four parallels:
The disappearance of the political center
If you think the culture wars are heated now, check out mid-19th century America. The Civil War took place during a period of pervasive piety when both North and South demonized one another with self-righteous, biblical language, one historian says.
The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.
They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.
Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political process" because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because "how do you compromise with sin."
"By transforming political issues into moral causes, you raise the stakes of the conflict and you tend to demonize your opponents," Goldfield says.
Contemporary political rhetoric is filled with similar rhetoric. Opponents aren't just wrong -- they're sinners, Goldfield says.
"The erosion of the center in contemporary American politics is the most striking parallel between today and the time just before the Civil War," Goldfield says.
In the lead-up to the war, political campaigns were filled with religious fervor. Political parties paraded their piety and labeled opponents infidels.
"Today's government gridlock results, in part, from this religious mind set that many issues can be divided into good and evil and sin and salvation," he says.
How much power should the federal government have?
Nullification, states' rights and secession. Those terms might sound like they're lifted from a Civil War history book, but they're actually making a comeback on the national stage today.
Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.
It was the kind of talk that led to the Civil War, historians say.
"One of the biggest debates during the Civil War was how far should governments go in dictating our lives. We still debate those politics," says William Blair, director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center at Pennsylvania State University.
The Southern answer to that question ignited the war. When they seceded, their leaders said that they were protecting the inherent rights of sovereign states. They invoked the 13 Colonies' fight for independence.
H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the Founding Fathers' belief that the Colonies were free and independent states.
"If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, are American heroes.
"Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
Slavery caused the war, says McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," and most historians.
Southern slaveholders invoked the Revolution while trying to build an antidemocratic slave state "dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal," McCurry says.
They also didn't want to lose the tremendous wealth generated by slave labor, she says.
"They felt confident because they were the biggest producers of cotton in the Western world at the height of the Industrial Revolution."
Unleashing the dogs of war
During the run-up to the Iraq War, former Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared that American troops would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.
Cheney made the mistake that political leaders have been making for ages -- he didn't know the enemy, says Emory Thomas, author of "The Dogs of War," which examines how ignorance on both sides led to the Civil War.
"Cheney thought it was going to be France in 1944, but it ended up Georgia in 1864," Thomas says.
Civil War leaders made the same mistake, Thomas says. Northern leaders like Lincoln didn't really think ordinary Southerners who had no slaves would fight in defense of slavery. Southerners didn't think Northerners were willing to go to war to preserve the Union, he says.
And few on both sides expected the war to be so bloody and long.
"America in 1861 didn't realize what the hell they were doing," he says. "They just weren't willing to think of unpleasant possibilities."
We risk the same mistakes when we commit to "limited" military campaigns in places such as Iraq and, most recently, Libya, Thomas says.
When President Obama announced a limited air bombing campaign in Libya, Thomas thought about the political leaders before the Civil War.
Each incrementally committed to various military provocations, thinking events wouldn't spiral out of control. They were wrong.
"Once you commit to war, you don't have any control over how it ends," Thomas says. "It's amazing how that sounds like Libya now. We may blunder into success, but we don't know who these guys (Libyan rebels) are."
The president as dictator
Barack Obama isn't the first black president, according to some Southern secessionists. That would be Abraham Lincoln. He was called a "black Republican" and the "Great Dictator."
There was a reason a large number of Americans despised Lincoln during the war. Think of the nation's recent "War on Terror." Some Americans thought Lincoln used the war to ignore the Constitution and expand the powers of the presidency.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (it gives a person who is jailed the right to challenge their detention in court) during the war and used military courts to arrests thousands of civilians.
Those legal decisions loom over post-9/11 America, historians say.
How do we treat American citizens caught attempting to bomb U.S. cities? How do we clamp down on American citizens who preach overthrowing the government? What rights do Guantanamo Bay prisoners possess?
"It's not just what does a president do against an enemy," says Blair, the Civil War historian. "It's what do you do against your own citizens to determine loyalty. That's a big debate today."
Lincoln skillfully addressed that debate, says Brian McGinty, author of "Lincoln & the Court."
He says Lincoln confronted unprecedented problems: The South was in rebellion, the nation's capital was in real danger from rebels in Virginia and their sympathizers in Maryland.
At one point, a mob blocked passage of Northern troops through Maryland to defend Washington.
"His oath of office required him to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' and he believed that the best way to do that was to preserve the Union," McGinty says. "What good would the Constitution be if the country itself was lost?"
McGinty doesn't think Lincoln became a dictator. He says he allowed the presidential election to take place in 1864. He worked with Congress. He asked military officers to arrest disloyal persons sparingly, and he never tolerated abuse of prisoners.
Lincoln said his actions would ultimately be subject to the review of the American people, not the courts, McGinty says.
"He called the people 'The Great Tribunal' and said that they would have the final word on constitutional issues. In the end, The Great Tribunal approved of what he had done. So, for the most part, has history."
The Great Tribunal, however, has yet to render a unanimous verdict on the Civil War.
A century-and-a-half after the war ended, people still clash over the causes and meaning.
Blair says they still clash because the war doesn't fit many Americans' image of themselves or their past.
"The American story of our past has been a hopeful, helpful narrative," he says. "But it's hard for us to understand that there was a time in this country when the Constitution protected slavery, and it was actually legal.
"How do you insert the story of slavery into that?"
Pakistan Tells U.S. It Must Sharply Cut C.I.A. Activities
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/asia/12pakistan.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan has demanded that the United States steeply reduce the number of Central Intelligence Agency operatives and Special Operations forces working in Pakistan, and that it halt C.I.A. drone strikes aimed at militants in northwest Pakistan. The request was a sign of the near collapse of cooperation between the two testy allies.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan has demanded that the United States steeply reduce the number of Central Intelligence Agency operatives and Special Operations forces working in Pakistan, and that it halt C.I.A. drone strikes aimed at militants in northwest Pakistan. The request was a sign of the near collapse of cooperation between the two testy allies.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Commodore 64 gets a reboot
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/04/the-commodore-64-gets-a-reboot/1
No, we haven't time-travelled to 1982. Computer company Commodore has revealed it will once again sell its line of personal computers, including the popular Commodore 64.
However, despite the classic look, the computers will house modern technology, such as an Intel Atom dual-core processor, Nvidia Ion graphics chipset, and USB and HDMI inputs.
According to the store on Commodore's website, the Commodore 64 will be available as early as mid-May, starting at $595.
The revamped Commodore 64 will ship with the Ubuntu operating system and the Commodore 1.0 OS, but users can also run the latest version of Windows, says the website.
Consumers can purchase overhauled versions of Commodore's Vic series of computers now, and the company is also releasing a line based on the Amiga soon.
In an interview with The New York Times, Commodore USA president and CEO Barry Altman says the computer could appeal to consumers seeking a device with a retro style or "30- to 40-year-olds who owned the original Commodore 64 and want the nostalgia of their first machine."
No, we haven't time-travelled to 1982. Computer company Commodore has revealed it will once again sell its line of personal computers, including the popular Commodore 64.
However, despite the classic look, the computers will house modern technology, such as an Intel Atom dual-core processor, Nvidia Ion graphics chipset, and USB and HDMI inputs.
According to the store on Commodore's website, the Commodore 64 will be available as early as mid-May, starting at $595.
The revamped Commodore 64 will ship with the Ubuntu operating system and the Commodore 1.0 OS, but users can also run the latest version of Windows, says the website.
Consumers can purchase overhauled versions of Commodore's Vic series of computers now, and the company is also releasing a line based on the Amiga soon.
In an interview with The New York Times, Commodore USA president and CEO Barry Altman says the computer could appeal to consumers seeking a device with a retro style or "30- to 40-year-olds who owned the original Commodore 64 and want the nostalgia of their first machine."
GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
