Friday! more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:47 AM | Comments (336)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

• Obama Claims Boehner Will Pass Immigration Reform This Year
  
• Free Speech Quackery
  
• Congress Passes 1 Trillion Dollar Spending Bill
  
• Cooke: Lone Survivor And The Racial Politics Of War
  
• Americans Increasingly Satisfied With US Race Relations
  
• As Expected, Obamacare To Hit Small Businesses Hard
  
• Rebuking The 'New' New Deal
  
• If Guns Cause More Violence, Where Is The Exploding Crime Rate?
  
• Tom Coburn Won't Serve Out Rest Of Term
  
• UK Military Advisor Doesn't Think Highly Of President Obama
  
• George Will, Doubts About Common Core
  
• Dozens More Obamacare Regs Coming In 2014(autoplay)
  
• We Can't Hunt Down Benghazi Killers Since They're No Classified As Al-Qaeda
  
• WSJ Reporter Goes Missing
  
• Climate Change Disbelief Rises In America
  
• No Mediaite, Given This Man's Crimes, I Think It Went Perfectly
  
• War On Women: Democratic Edition
  
• Dems Staking Out A Position On The Weed?
  
• Amazing NHL Save Last Night
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:04 AM | Comments (520)
Post contains 152 words, total size 3 kb.

Gotta head out early so you'll have to create your entertainment with these scraps, some duct tape and a lighter.

A Lefty Millennial Re-Discovers Communism

Or as Jesse A. Myerson titled his essay in Rolling Stone, "Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For". Which calls for guaranteed jobs and pensions, state-owned banks and major assets and this particular real estate investment technique:

3. Take Back The Land

Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve. In a few years, my landlord will probably sell my building to another landlord and make off with the appreciated value of the land s/he also claims to own - which won't even get taxed, as long as s/he ploughs it right back into more real estate.

Yeah I'd like to see more details on this 'just claim ownership of buildings' step since in my experience the transfer of a big load of cash always seemed to happen before my claim of ownership was recognized.

Myerson seems to think this is all some sort of brand new modern socialism and Jonah Goldberg has some fun with him pointing out that nearly everything Myerson calls for is straight out of the Soviet Union's constitution.

One wonders why he bothered to single out landlords, since he calls for the state appropriation of, well, everything. Why? Because "hoarders blow," and he doesn't mean folks who refuse to throw away their Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets and old Sharper Image catalogs. He means successful people who "hoard" the wealth that rightly belongs to all of us.

Apparently "blowing" is an open warrant to undo the entire constitutional order. If only someone had told the founders.

In the ensuing kerfuffle, Myerson, whose Twitter hashtag is "#FULLCOMMUNISM," seemed shocked that any of his ideas sounded Soviet to his critics. Andrew McCoy, a conservative blogger, offered the specific citations for Myerson's proposals in the Soviet constitution. I suspect this was news to Myerson, but even if not, I bet he doesn't care. It is a permanent trope of the left that its ideas failed because we didn't try hard enough. This time is always different.

But you see Myerson's reforms - unlike everything that ever came before - are fortified with electrolytes. [Makes the there you go gesture]

Posted by: Maetenloch at 04:13 PM | Comments (1103)
Post contains 924 words, total size 11 kb.

Totally fixed, y'all. Mitnick submitted his report to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

[M]itnick wrote: "It's shameful the team that built the Healthcare.gov site implemented minimal, if any, security best practices to mitigate the significant risk of a system compromise."

...

Mitnick concluded that, "After reading the documents provided by David Kennedy that detailed numerous security vulnerabilities associated with the Healthcare.gov Website, it's clear that the management team did not consider security as a priority."

His comments were backed up by testimony by Kennedy, who is CEO and founder of TrustedSec LLC and a self-described "white hat hacker," meaning someone who hacks in order to fix security flaws and not commit cybercrime. In November, Kennedy and other experts testified before the same panel about security issues on Healthcare.gov.

Kennedy testified that most of the flaws they identified at the time still exist on the site, and said "indeed, it's getting worse," telling the panel that he and other experts have seen little improvement in the past two months.

"Nothing has really changed since our November 19 testimony," Kennedy said.

How bad are the security flaws? Well, not that bad. I mean, a hacker could just take over your computer through the Healthcare.gov interface, is all.

“The site is fundamentally flawed in ways that make it dangerous to people who use it,” said Kevin Johnson, one of the experts who reviewed Kennedy’s findings.

Johnson said that one of the most troubling issues was that a hacker could upload malicious code to the site, then attack other HealthCare.gov users.

“You can take control of their computers,” said Johnson, chief executive of a firm known as Secure Ideas and a teacher at the non-profit SANS Institute, the world’s biggest organization that trains and certifies cyber security professionals.

They're doing "passive analysis," which means just looking at the code. "Active analysis" would be, obviously, an actual attempt to hack (in order to expose security flaws, not to actually steal information).

They could prove their claims, then, by hacking the site. But that is itself illegal, and I guess for some reason I can't fathom Obama won't sign an Executive Order permitting them to hack the site (under supervision) to see just how vulnerable it is.

Instead, I guess, we'll just all roll the dice and let a smile be our umbrella.

Here's how Reuters spins the story-- that Republicans, rather than hackers and security experts, are trying to scare people about Healthcare.gov's lack of security.

Republicans warn of security flaws in Obamacare website

Republicans in Congress sought to showcase what they call major security problems with the Obamacare website HealthCare.gov on Thursday, just as U.S. officials ramp up a national campaign to persuade young adults to use the site to enroll in health insurance.

In a public messaging tug-of-war that will likely intensify in coming weeks, the Republican-led House of Representatives targeted the healthcare reform law in three separate oversight hearings. Two were geared toward Republican claims that HealthCare.gov remains vulnerable to hackers more than three months after its botched October 1 rollout.

Democrats accused Republicans of "cherry picking" partial information about the website to try and scare consumers away from it

See? It's just Republicans making these claims. Not experts. Just a politically-motivated attack Republicans just made up, you see.

Are LOLcats still a thing? I was told LOLcats were still a thing.

And, Open Blog.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (152)
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

Corrupt.

Internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emails show extensive collaboration between top agency officials and leading environmentalist groups, including overt efforts to coordinate messaging and pressure the fossil fuel industry.

The emails, obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, could fuel an ongoing controversy over EPA policies that critics say are biased against traditional sources of energy.

Emails show EPA used official events to help environmentalist groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies of letters drafted by those groups into official statements, and worked with environmentalists to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company.

Nancy Grantham, director of public affairs for EPA Region 1, which covers New England, asked an organizer for the Sierra ClubÂ’s New Hampshire chapter to share the groupÂ’s agenda so EPA could adjust its messaging accordingly in an email dated March 12, 2012.

“If you could, it would great [sic] if you can send me an email describing what you would like to do in early April in NH–that way I can coordinate messaging with our air offices here and at HQ,” Grantham wrote.

Critics of the agency and its nonprofit allies were surprised by the cooperation.

“The level of coordination in these documents is shocking,” EELI said in a statement.

It's a long article, reporting lots of incidences of coordination, so read the whole thing.

The EPA head learned about this when you did, when she read the paper this morning.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) grilled McCarthy on the issue at a Thursday hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, reciting portions of a Wednesday Washington Free Beacon report on the emails.

One of those emails showed that deputy EPA administrator Bob Perciasepe held an event with two dozen environmentalist groups for the explicit purpose of helping them solicit comments supportive of stringent environmental regulations.

“Is it proper behavior for the EPA to go out with these groups for the sole purpose of recruiting additional comment signers to then go ahead and support your position?” Barrasso asked.

McCarthy declined to address the event specifically, saying she had not seen the email in question and was not aware of the Perciasepe event.

“I certainly don’t want to interpret what you just read, senator,” McCarthy said. “I don’t know what the occasion was, I’m sorry.”

I'm sure she's outraged and will get right on it.

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (182)
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

[We Politely Request That All Off-Topic or Political Comments Be Directed to the Overnight Open Thread Coming Shortly Above This One, or the Open Thread down page, Which Will Serve Officially as the Current "Active Conversation" Thread for All Discussions Not Related To This Topic.]

Welcome to this week's edition of the Spaced-Out Challenge. There are no targets this week. Instead, it's dedicated to the life of a man who dramatically impacted astronomy with a simple idea he refused out of his personal philosophy to patent. more...

Posted by: CAC at 05:58 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 701 words, total size 6 kb.

His alibi had holes in it.

You know, we haven't really discussed this. But My Lord, look at this monster. This is legitimately frightening.

Imagine if that Handsome Devil slowed his car beside you and asked you to watch him as he pleasured himself with some Alpine Lace. Holey strokes, that's scary.

Anyway:

Philadelphia police served Christopher Pagano, 41, with a warrant at his Norristown home, according to officials with the Norristown Police Department....

The Daily News on Monday reported the case extended beyond Mayfair, quoting a message the suspect allegedly sent a Bridesburg woman through dating website OkCupid. "I started to compare girls to cheese due to their milky complections [sic], girls are soft, smooth feeling and tend to like dairy products more," the message read. "That and typical advertising, always using a girl to advertise dairy products. So cheese is what I started to use as a replacement for having sex with girls."

The paper on Thursday reported more readers had stepped forward to share similar tales and that several women were cooperating with the investigation. It is not yet clear how many incidents Pagano is being charged in connection with or exactly what charges he faces.

What do you charge him with? How about three counts of Being My Fucking Hero, that's what you charge him with.

Thanks to not_steve_in_hb.

Oh, and let me close this tab: some stuff you might not know about the custom of the "555" fake phone numbers you see on tv and in movies.

Here's what I found interesting: They're not all fake.

So we keep using them?

REAL FAKE NUMBERS

What you may not know, though, is that there are many more “real” 555 phone numbers. Since 1994, 555 numbers have actually been available for personal or business use. That’s when the North American Numbering Plan Administration started taking applications from people and businesses who wanted their own 555 numbers. Theoretically, these numbers would have worked from anywhere in the continent; dialers would be able to dial 555-XXXX and always end up with the same number regardless of area code. The hope was that if you needed, say, a taxi anywhere in the country, you could just remember one number that would always work.

Things didn’t work out quite so smoothly. People and businesses snapped up the 555 numbers —except for 555-0100 through 555-0199, which were held back for fictional use—but they soon learned that owning a phone number isn’t all that useful if you don’t also own a phone company that can connect the number. Phone companies protested that setting up these services would be wildly expensive; in 2003 Verizon told The New York Times that adding the nationwide 555 service to its systems would cost the company $108 million. (Verizon did offer to hook up the 555 numbers for owners, but the same Times story noted that the service usually required a $2,500 set-up fee per area code.)

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM | Comments (372)
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

You don't have to be Jewish -- just have a "Jewish-sounding name."

UCLA professor is urging those who “have a Jewish-sounding name” to lobby their senators against a new bipartisan measure that would level sanctions on Iran.

UCLA professor of public policy Mark Kleiman took to his Washington Monthly blog on Wednesday to urge his readers “to yell at Senate Democrats who support the Iran sanctions bill,” which he characterized as a “lunatic piece of warmongering legislation.”

Kleiman, a frequent contributor to Washington Monthly, said Jewish voters hold the key to convincing Democrats to reverse their support of the bill.

“Please consider making your voice heard especially strongly if you’re Jewish, or have a Jewish-sounding name,” wrote Kleiman, author of the book Marijuana.

Kleiman provides a form letter that his readers with “a Jewish sounding name” can use when they fax their senator.

...

Pressed in a follow-up email to explain his reliance on non-Jewish people who may have a “Jewish sounding name,” Kleiman again lashed out at Adelson, who donates to many pro-Israel causes.

“Because – given the false impression cultivated by Adelson’s money – an email from someone named Shapiro has a surprise factor not generated by the same email from someone named O’Hara,” wrote Kleiman, who also blogs for “The Reality-Based Community.”

He claims that stopping Iran from getting a bomb is mistakenly believed to be "popular with Jewish voters," whereas he insists it's only popular with one Jewish voter, Sheldon Adelson.

Notice the assumption embedded in his call for a dishonest freeping: He seems to think that The Jews control America's foreign policy, so he's telling people who either are Jewish or who can "pass" for Jewish online to tell Senators The Jews Have Decided Thus and So It Shall Be So.

Need I even ask you to imagine the media reaction if someone on the right had suggested that people with "Jewish-sounding names" contact Senators telling them they're against relieving Iran of sanctions?

Posted by: Ace at 01:17 PM | Comments (280)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

Well! It's not hard to guess what the media thinks of Robert Gates' memoir exposing Obama's and Hillary's cynical half-hearted fighting of a war they didn't believe in, and didn't care to win.

Judy Woodruff isn't pleased to have real information about Obama:

Secretary Gates, you make it clear you care so deeply about the American troops. You are fiercely supportive of them. You're not at all worried, though, about affecting the morale of the troops with a book like this that questions the commander-in-chief's commitment to the war?

Woodruff is suddenly against leaks as a general matter. Why, if real information about the inner workings of an Administration finds its way into the public debate, it might reduce the candor and quality of advice given at the White House.

You know-- the argument in favor of Executive Privilege.

The late Sen. Pat Moynihan, among other things, used to rail against what he called tell-all books by insiders. He said it was a disservice to the free exchange of ideas, that it made people hold back, because they thought they might be quoted somewhere in a book, and thus it was a disservice to history.

Little Mattie Lauer was in a right snit:

During a live interview with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer suggested that criticism of President Obama in Gates's new memoir was endangering American troops overseas: "As this criticism is leveled by you in the book of the commander-in-chief, the acting commander-in-chief, at a time when some 40,000 U.S. troops are in harm's way, do you think that by calling him into question at this stage it is either dangerous or dishonorable?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

After Gates rejected the notion, Lauer insisted: "But you don't think it undermines his credibility with the troops he is commander-in-chief of right now?" At the top of the show, Lauer teased the interview: "Robert Gates on his new memoir and his criticism of President Obama. Is it fair with U.S. troops still in harm's way?"

Katie Couric doesn't like this whole business of "informing the public:"

In an interview with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates for Yahoo News on Monday, newly-named global anchor Katie Couric urged him to express regret for criticism of President Obama in his new memoir: "Do you think in any way, shape or form that this was the wrong thing to do? It was just bad form?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Gates replied: "No, I don't. The reality is there are a lot of contemporary issues that are at the heart of this book....And to write about them in 2017, it would be completely irrelevant." Couric followed up: "You have been known in Washington as the consummate team player, a real stand-up guy, a true patriot. Are worried this might tarnish your reputation?"

In part, Gates responded: "Frankly, I just don't buy this notion that the book shouldn't have been written or shouldn't have been written for another three years, or that it is a negative narrative about President Obama, it's not." Couric suggested another adjective: "Or a betrayal." Gates repeated: "Or a betrayal."

Couric went on to opine:

"A lot of people have criticized you, as you well know, for writing this book while President Obama's still in office and men and women are still in Afghanistan. Senator John McCain said he would have waited to write this. Madeleine Albright suggested you should not have written this book while you were so angry."

CBS' Rita Braver is also pretty sure that Gates should have suppressed the truth. You know, For America.

BRAVER: I think what people are troubled by, is that you criticized President Obama on actions – particularly on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan – while it's still going on. And people are saying – look, that's just not right.

GATES: I make very explicit in the book that I agreed with all of the President's decisions on Afghanistan – the ones that he made in 2009 and – and subsequently. My one concern – as I described in the book, and to be honest about it – was that over the course of 2010 and early 2011, the President began to have his own reservations about whether it would all work. And I think that's not an unfair thing to say.

BRAVER: In your book, you say that one of your favorite adages is, never miss a good chance to shut up. And I wonder if you think, maybe, you violated your own advice here – and do you regret anything that you've written?

Now, if this sudden worry about Administration tell-alls sounds rather, well, sudden to you, you're right. Here, for example, was Judy Woodruff interviewing Bush turncoat Scott McClellan, asking him not why he squealed but why he didn't squeal sooner:

But that leads to something that a lot of people are wondering here about why you waited to say it until now. Why not speak up when there was a chance to, if not change things, at least let people know that there was some what you`re now calling propaganda or misleading going on?

And yes if you check your calendars, McClellan's tell-all concerned "policies still ongoing" during a time when troops were "still in the field."

But with Obama's minions... they are required to observe Obamerta, the Obama Code of Silence.

It's only patriotic, you know.

Posted by: Ace at 12:31 PM | Comments (220)
Post contains 955 words, total size 7 kb.

Via Hot Air, which also notes the New Hampshire legislature just "endorsed" a pot legalization bill by a narrow vote of 170-168. "Endorsing" the bill means... that they vote on it again, this time for real.

I don't know why they do it this way. I suspect it's because they're taking the pot.

Crowder doesn't make an argument pro or con about drug legalization so much as he makes an argument in favor of informed and candid debate.

And I think virtually everything he says here is true (with one caveat):

No, legalizing pot will not reduce criminality. It's not the case that drug dealers are in the pot trade because they have a long family tradition of selling pot, and then the government just up and went and made their family business illegal.

They are selling pot precisely because it is illegal -- you can charge a premium for contraband. If they are not exacting a criminal premium on their drug endeavors, they will find a new avenue of criminality which does pay them that premium.

No, pot is not harmless. Of course it's not. I don't know if it's more harmful than alcohol or less, but no frequently-taken drug which directly affects your mind (and your personality) could possibly be "harmless."

One harm pot doesn't expose people to is the pain of a hangover. But alcohol's hangover effect may be a feature, not a bug, in as much as it provides a direct and potent biological negative feedback telling the drinker "Maybe slow down next time, huh?"

One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not prove causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of neurochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up.

That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate.

But while I question that, I don't actually dispute it-- I just don't know.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (514)
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.