It's Bank Failure Friday!!!

And here they are, ordered, and numbered for the year so far.

There are no bank failures this wee, but we have two credit union failures:

8. Montauk Credit Union, New York, ​NY
9. Bethex Federal Credit Union,  ​Bronx, ​NY ​09/18/2015

Here is the Full NCUA list.

I am not sure why credit unions are failing more than commercial banks, there are only 6 bank failures so far this year.

Part of it might be that the numbers of credit unions migh have fallen a lot less than those of banks, because, as non-profits, there is less impetus to merge, particularly since 2B2F^* will never be a viable strategy for non-profit financial institutions.

^*Too Big To Fail.

In Addition to Scoring a Remarkable Electoral Triumph, It Appears That Jeremy Corbyn Has the Power of Prophecy

In 1993, he predicted that the Maastricht Treaty, which converted the European Community into the European Union, would lead to an institution run by and for bankers, to the detriment of the most vulnerable of society:

Jeremy Corbyn predicted that the formation Euro would lead to the imposition of a “bankers’ Europe” on its members, according to parliamentary records.

Ahead of the 1993 adoption of the EU’s founding Maastricht Treaty Mr Corbyn warned that the creation of the currency’s European Central Bank would undermine European countries’ ability to set their own policy.

“The whole basis of the Maastricht treaty is the establishment of a European Central Bank, which is staffed by bankers, independent of national governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability,” he said.

“That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom—or any other Government—would wish to carry out.”

(emphasis mine)

Credit where credit is due.  Corbyn nailed this.

If Ahmed Mohamed Had Lived in Yemen, Barack Obama Would Have Assassinated Him

Critics of Obama's drone based assassination program note that under the criteria used by his signature strike program, the clock kid would have been killed:

Yesterday Barack Obama joined the groundswell of social media support for Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old high school student detained by the police for being seen with an electronic device and being a Muslim named Ahmed Mohamed. Good for Obama. And good for Ahmed that he wasn’t building a clock in Yemen.

………

Since his inauguration, Barack Obama has drastically expanded the use of so-called “signature” drone strikes—killings that aren’t targeted against any person in particular, but against someone who looks or acts a certain way. Precisely which behavioral patterns or appearances are sufficient to sign an aerial death sentence remain an absolute state secret—all we know about the so-called “pattern of life activity” sufficient to justify the killing of an unidentified stranger is based on media reports quoting anonymous U.S. officials. In 2008, the New York Times reported that a “signature” can be as vague as “the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run.” A later Times report said targets could include anyone near “training camps and suspicious compounds”—dicey given the Pentagon’s lackluster record when it comes to assessing compounds. The body of anonymously provided evidence suggests that loose suspicion is about all it takes to condemn someone on the ground, and based on the resultant craters, it’s easy to see that standards are lax.


In 2011, a 16-year-old American citizen named Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone-fired missile while eating outside in Yemen just two weeks after his father, an Islamist cleric on the CIA kill list, was drone-assassinated. Abdulrahman’s signature appears to have consisted of little more than traveling with his father and looking like the people around his father. When Attorney General Eric Holder was questioned about Abdulrahman’s assassination, he said only that he was “not specifically targeted by the United States.” Although he’s been the most visible (and controversial) drone victim due to his citizenship, al-Awlaki is far from the only child killed on Obama’s orders—the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that upwards of 204 kids have been killed by drones in Pakistan alone since 2004. Some of them might’ve simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but only the CIA knows how many were killed because they matched some classified “signature.”

………

According to a blockbuster New York Times report on the CIA’s signature strikes, the drone program’s hair trigger has quite literally become a joke:

But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.

Imagine then, that a CIA analyst in Virginia or drone pilot in Nevada sees 14-year-old Ahmed from 10,000 in the air, working with a bundle of wires and metallic pieces.

The same Times report said that the Obama administration’s drone killing program is so loose that it “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” What if Ahmed Mohamed, of Sudanese descent, had been located in war zone Syria—where 14-year-olds are most certainly military age—carrying this device?

(emphasis mine)

This kid would be dead in Yemen, or Afghanistan, or Sudan, or Syria, or Iraq.

Obama has repeatedly pulled the trigger^* on kids with far less due process and far less evidence all over the Muslim world.

The Nobel committee really f$#@ed up when they gave Obama the Peace Prize.

^*He is commander-in-chief, and therefore fully culpable under the command responsibility (Yamashita) doctrine.

F#$@ Autocorrect

I am sending a text to She Who Must be Obeyed about getting a dorm fridge to our daughter, and future Tony Award winning actress, Natalie.

She wanted to get it here, and then schlep it up.

I thought that we could find something cheaper in the greater New York City area, so while commuting, I did a web search, and found something quite competitive less than a mile from her school.

What's more, the have free delivery.

It seemed like a winner to me, but when I attempted to text her that there was a better alternative in Manhattan, what I actually sent said, "Found cheaper fridges in lesbianism."

Lesbianism?!?  Seriously?!?

I am SO ready for Babel Fish enabled cell phones.

Posted via mobile.

Can We Please Give Texas Back to Mexico?

Don't Make Larry Wilmore Angry, You Wouldn't Like It When He's Angry

In Texas, it appears that if you are Muslim, and you bring a project to show your engineering teacher, they will cuff you and haul you off to jail:

Ahmed Mohamed’s homemade alarm clock got him suspended from his suburban Dallas high school and detained and handcuffed by police officers on Monday after school officials accused him of making a fake bomb. By Wednesday, it had brought him an invitation to the White House, support from Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg, and a moment of head-spinning attention as questions arose whether he had been targeted because of his name and his religion.

As a result, a 14-year-old freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Tex., who is partial to tinkering, technology and NASA T-shirts and wants to go to M.I.T., found himself in a social media whirlwind that reflected the nation’s charged debates on Islam, immigration and ethnicity.

“Cool clock, Ahmed,” President Obama said on Twitter. “Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.” Mr. Obama’s staff invited Ahmed to the White House for Astronomy Night on Oct. 19, an event bringing together scientists, engineers, astronauts, teachers and students to spend a night stargazing from the South Lawn.

The president’s spokesman said the episode was a case study in unreasoned prejudice in an era when the country is fighting Islamic terrorism at home and in the Middle East.

“This episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even good-hearted people who have dedicated their lives to educating young people from doing the good work that they set out to do,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary.

These are not good-hearted people, and Irving is not a good-hearted place.

Their mayor, Beth Van Duyne, has successfully run on a platform of religious bigotry for years now, and I do not expect anything resembling an apology from her.

Of course, now it's blown up into a major sh%$ storm with POTUS got into the game on Twitter:

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.

— President Obama (@POTUS) September 16, 2015

I really hope that Irving will spend the next few years as the butt of "dumb hick" jokes on the late night shows.

I always knew that Irving was a center of evil, it was the Dallas Cowboys home field until 2008,^* but this takes to a whole new (low) level.

If we cannot give all of Texas back to Mexico, can we give Irving back?

Please?


^*They now play in Arlington, TX, the largest city in the US without a mass transit system.

The US Air Force is Desperate

Because of the small number of ruinously expensive F-22's, and the lack of performance of it's equally ruinously expensive F-35, has the wild blue yonder brigade looking at extending the service life of the F-15 C until the 2040s:

The lack of an official retirement date for the U.S. Air Force’s F-15C is perhaps the strongest indication of a bright future for the platform.

This is not lost on the fighter’s manufacturer, Boeing, which is recasting its efforts to offer an upgrade plan for the air superiority aircraft after its earlier effort, dubbed the Silent Eagle, flopped.

Most Air Force platforms have a retirement date on the books, even if just for planning. But the F-15C is in a peculiar position. It was to be replaced by a fleet of F-22s, but high costs prompted then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates to end production for the stealthy, twin-engine aircraft in 2009 with only 187 jets produced. This is far fewer than the 350 hoped for. So the F-15C fleet is likely to stay on far longer than expected, at least until an F-22follow-on—dubbed the Next-Generation Air Dominance aircraft—is designed and fielded.

“They will not be producing another air superiority jet until the 2030s, and they will not be out there in sufficient numbers . . . until 2040 or beyond,” says Mike Gibbons, Boeing’s F-15 vice president

Air Force officials will not go so far as to call it a “gap” in capability, but there clearly is a shortfall. This is exemplified by the shift in plans for the critical air-to-air mission. A decade ago, the service projected a “high-low” mix of F-22s handling all of the air superiority tasks, with the F-35 relegated to a multirole mission of suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses and close air support roles. The F-35 was equipped for limited air-to-air engagement, including for self protection, but not as a front-line air superiority fighter.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh says that now, however, the limited number of F-22s has pushed the service to look at a long-range plan for the F-15C as well as pressing the F-35 into that role. The F-35 “is not intended to be an air superiority fighter. That was not how it was designed,” he told reporters during a Sept. 15 press conference at the annual Air Force Association Air and Space Conference. “When the F-22 buy was curtailed . . . we [decided we] have to supplement it with something. Near-term it is going to be the F-15C . . . and then as the F-35 comes on board it is capable of supplementing the F-22, but then it will not be doing its primary job.”

Gen. Herbert Carlisle, who heads Air Combat Command, acknowledges the conundrum. The F-15C will require costly upgrades to stay relevant in the fight. And the service is already stretched for resources. Durability testing thus far—with more to come—suggests new longerons, wing spars and wings could be required on at least some of the F-15Cs. This will result in a “pretty significant bill,” he told reporters at the conference, adding it will total billions of dollars.

………

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh says that now, however, the limited number of F-22s has pushed the service to look at a long-range plan for the F-15C as well as pressing the F-35 into that role. The F-35 “is not intended to be an air superiority fighter. That was not how it was designed,” he told reporters during a Sept. 15 press conference at the annual Air Force Association Air and Space Conference. “When the F-22 buy was curtailed . . . we [decided we] have to supplement it with something. Near-term it is going to be the F-15C . . . and then as the F-35 comes on board it is capable of supplementing the F-22, but then it will not be doing its primary job.”

Gen. Herbert Carlisle, who heads Air Combat Command, acknowledges the conundrum. The F-15C will require costly upgrades to stay relevant in the fight. And the service is already stretched for resources. Durability testing thus far—with more to come—suggests new longerons, wing spars and wings could be required on at least some of the F-15Cs. This will result in a “pretty significant bill,” he told reporters at the conference, adding it will total billions of dollars.

………

One of the 2040C loadout options would place four external air-to-air missiles on each of the CFTs. That doubles the loadout from the current eight to 16. Another option—available only if the Air Force opts to add fly-by-wire controls to the aircraft—would add more air-to-air missiles on the outboard stations as well. These options involve a new CFT design, though it would follow the existing CFT outer mold line, Gibbons says. The service does employ CFTs for the F-15E Strike Eagle fleet, but they are rarely used for the air superiority variant.

The goal of 16 air-to-air missiles is at the “upper end” of the need, based on a variety of scenarios being examined by the Air Force, Gibbons says. “It is very easy to envision that with our forces around the world enemy threats can get an advantage . . . because they have aircraft on station and aircraft at bases [close by]. It is just a matter of numbers. If you are anywhere near their country, they can launch a lot of jets pretty quickly.”

This is actually an area where the F-15 could outperform the F-22.

The F-22 will never fly with more than 4 AMRAAMS and 4 Sidewinders.

Pylons were never developed for the aircraft.

When flying against members of the Su-27 family, which can routinely carry  at least 10 AAM, and has the ability to carry larger missiles with superior kinematics, the F-15 might actually outperform the F-22.

Still, for the Air Force to admit this is a whole bunch of crow to eat.

The Fed Does the Right Thing for Reasons that Are Totally Opaque to Me

For some reason, central bankers are always too quick to raise interest rates.

It's some sort of bizarre monetary dick swinging.

Everyone predicted that the Federal Reserve would raise interest rates, even though the workforce participation rate is the lowest that it has been since 1978.

It turns out that "everyone" was wrong:

One of the longest economic expansions in American history remains so fragile that the Federal Reserve said on Thursday it would postpone any retreat from its stimulus campaign.

Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, described the decision as a close call and said the central bank still expected to raise interest rates later this year. The Fed has kept its benchmark interest rate close to zero since late 2008, when the nation’s economy was at the depths of crisis.

“The recovery from the Great Recession has advanced sufficiently far and domestic spending has been sufficiently robust that an argument can be made for a rise in interest rates at this time,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference.

But, she said, “heightened uncertainties abroad,” including the Chinese economy’s weakness, had persuaded the bank to wait at least a few more weeks for fresh data that might “bolster its confidence” in continued growth.

The Fed’s decision, announced after a two-day meeting of its policy-making committee, had been widely expected by investors in recent weeks.

I'd try to explain this,but I do not have a f%$#ing clue as to why this happened, and if I did try to figure this out, all that I would get is a headache.

This Is a Seriously Cool Person Who Knows Where Their Towel Is*

Some good soul has offered to pay for the removal of Confederate statuses in New Orleans:

An anonymous donor has agreed to foot the bill for the removal of four Confederate-related statues, the city announced in a letter this week to the New Orleans City Council.

It will cost an estimated $144,000 to remove and transport the statues of Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis, as well as a monument to the Battle of Liberty Place, according to the letter. The donor agreed to pay for the entire operation.

"These four statues stand in direct contradiction to the ideal of freedom enshrined in our Constitution and their presence in our city was meant to perpetuate a false history that literally puts the Confederacy on a pedestal," Deputy Mayor Andy Kopplin said in the Sept. 14 letter. "True remembrance is required, not blind reverence."

 I would very much like to shake the hand of whoever is behind this.

^*It is a reference from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Go read the book.

I Think That Obama Is Beginning to F%$# with Republicans for Sh%$S and Giggles

White House officials have just met with Black Lives Matter officials:

Black Lives Matter activists, including select members of Campaign Zero, met with top White House officials on Wednesday, a senior administration official confirmed to BuzzFeed News.

Activists met with senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, as well as Roy Austin, the deputy assistant to the president for urban affairs, and a collection of White House officials. The meeting focused on law enforcement and community policing with an emphasis on how to increase public safety locally.

I can hear wingnut heads exploding right now.

The Good Guy's Win

A few days ago, I noted how law enforcement came down on a New Hampshire library for operating a TOR node.

Today, we earn that the West Lebanon library told the US state security apparatus to go pound sand:

The Kilton Public Library in West Lebanon will reactivate its piece of the anonymous internet browsing network Tor, despite law enforcement’s concerns that the network might be used for criminal activities.

The Lebanon Library Board of Trustees let stand its unanimous June decision to devote some of the library’s excess bandwidth to a node, or “relay,” for Tor, after a full room of about 50 residents and other interested members of the public expressed their support for Lebanon’s participation in the system at a meeting Tuesday night.

“With any freedom there is risk,” library board Chairman Francis Oscadal said. “It came to me that I could vote in favor of the good . . . or I could vote against the bad.

“I’d rather vote for the good because there is value to this.”

I haz a happy.

Quote of the Day

“I’d rather go to Iraq than work for Carly Fiorina again,” said one high-level former campaign staffer, who asked not to be identified, citing disclosure restrictions in his contract.

Carly Fiorina, who's net worth is something north of $50 million, stiffed her campaign workers in her 2010 Senate (Demon Sheep) campaign.

BTW, not getting paid by a political candidate is something that happens now and again, the amount of outright hatred expressed rivals that of long time Hewlett Packard employees.

It's not about getting stiffed. She must have been absolute hell to work for.

Think about this: Donald f%$#ing Trump doesn't have employees ratting him out like this, and neither does Hillary Clinton, and if any of her former employees were willing to right a tell all, they would get a seven figure advance. (Even more if they were willing to mention "Benghazi." )

 It really is remarkable how people like her (I mean high powered executives, not Republicans in this case) keep failing up the business food chain.

H/t Digby at Salon for the quote.

And yet Another Element of the US State Security Apparatus Goes Rogue

It appears that the DEA specifically targeted the Evo Morales government in Bolivia in what appears to be something very close to an attempted coup:

The United States has secretly indicted top officials connected to the government of Bolivian President Evo Morales for their alleged involvement in a cocaine trafficking scheme. The indictments, secured in a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sting called "Operation Naked King," have not been previously reported.

Morales, a former leader of Bolivia's coca growers union, has long been at loggerheads with the DEA. In 2008, Morales expelled the agency from the country and embarked on his own strategy of combatting drug trafficking, acknowledging the traditional uses of coca in Bolivian culture and working cooperatively with coca growers to regulate some legal activity and to promote alternative development elsewhere. Morales' plan has been effective at reducing cultivation, according to the United Nations.

But that doesn't mean the DEA accepted its eviction quietly. In fact, the agency went after members of Morales' administration in an apparent effort to undermine his leadership.

The sealed indictments, revealed last week in a lawsuit filed by long-time DEA informant Carlos Toro, target Walter Álvarez, a top Bolivian air force official; the late Raul García, father of Vice President Álvaro García Linera; Faustino Giménez, an Argentine citizen and Bolivian resident who is said to be close to the vice president; and Katy Alcoreza, described as an intelligence agent for Morales. Toro said in the court document that he played an integral role in securing the indictments as part of the DEA's undercover investigation into the alleged Bolivian cocaine trafficking ring, which the agency ran out of its office in Asuncion, Paraguay.

………

The U.S. government and the DEA made no secret of their displeasure when their longtime nemesis, Morales, was elected. “If radicals continue to hijack the indigenous movement, we could find ourselves faced with a narcostate that supports the uncontrolled cultivation of coca," General James T. Hill, a U.S. army commander with the Southern Command, told the House Armed Services Committee in March 2004, referring to Morales' movement.

"I don't think there's an attractive or viable future by becoming a narcostate," John Walters, then the Bush administration's drug czar, told The New York Times the next year, when it appeared Morales was on his way to victory.

Morales used the accusations to his political benefit. "They accuse me of everything," Morales said at a campaign rally, according to the same Times article. "They say Evo is a drug trafficker, that Evo is a narcoterrorist. They don't know how to defend their position, so they attack us."

………

By 2014, the Times was writing about Bolivia's renaissance:

Tucked away in the shadow of its more populous and more prosperous neighbors, tiny, impoverished Bolivia, once a perennial economic basket case, has suddenly become a different kind of exception — this time in a good way.

Its economy grew an estimated 6.5 percent last year, among the strongest rates in the region. Inflation has been kept in check. The budget is balanced, and once-crippling government debt has been slashed. And the country has a rainy-day fund of foreign reserves so large for its relatively small economy that it could be the envy of nearly every other country in the world. The Times article notes that extreme poverty under Morales has plummeted, despite -- or, more likely, because of -- his refusal to follow the path the U.S. has urged.

………

In the face of U.S. denunciations that Bolivia would become a narcostate under Morales, the country has instead managed to reduce coca leaf cultivation, especially over the past five years. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, total production of dried coca leaf fell 11 percent from 2013 to 2014, and has fallen by an average of nearly 10 percent each year since 2011. Interdiction efforts targeting coca cultivation have also dropped precipitously since the DEA's dismissal in 2008, though confiscations of cocaine continued to rise until 2013, when they dropped off significantly. In 2014, confiscations of processed cocaine hydrochloride returned to previous levels, though interdiction of coca leaves and cocaine base remained low.

"[Drug trafficking] must be fought -- we are convinced of that -- and we are doing so more effectively and more wisely," Morales told Al Jazeera in a 2014 interview. "When the United States was in control of counternarcotics, the US governments used drug trafficking for purely geopolitical purposes .... The US uses drug trafficking and terrorism for political control .... We have nationalised the fight against drug trafficking."

In 2009, Hillary Clinton warned of Morales and the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's "fear mongering" in written testimony during her secretary of state confirmation hearings. Yet Morales' fears, it turns out, weren't rooted in mere paranoia. The DEA was, in fact, out to get him.

The revelation of Operation Naked King goes to show that Bolivian leaders' paranoia was well justified, said Kathryn Ledebur, who runs the Andean Information Network based in Bolivia. "US authorities frequently dismiss Bolivian government denunciations about the DEA and US intervention as absurd speculation, but these revelations show what is common knowledge on the ground — there has long been an alarming lack of oversight of DEA operations in Latin America, including recurring mission creep and a violation of agreements with host countries," she wrote in an email.

What is going on here is very simple: A coup attempt by the DEA, and they are trying to take this government down not because their policies are a failure, but because their policies are a success.

If other governments follow their example, bad things will happen:   the DEA will face a situation where their most important path to career advancement an visibility, f%$#ing around with other sovereign nations, will be curtailed.

At some point, lead to reductions in budget and manpower at the agency, so clearly Evo Morales must be overthrown, because, to quote Mel Brooks, "Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

This is not surprising.  After all, one of the first major foreign initiatives of the Obama administration was to tacitly support a coup against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras.

Haven't we f%$#ed up Latin America enough since 1823?

Zombie Ideas

The New York Times editorial board notices that Republicans are trying to privatize IRS tax collection yet again:

Buried in the Senate-passed version of the big highway bill is a provision that would require the Treasury secretary to use private debt collectors to collect unpaid back taxes.

The provision, added to the bill by Republican leaders, is ostensibly intended to help pay for highways. But it’s a bad idea that should be kept out of the House version of the bill and out of any final compromise version.

Private tax collection was tried in the 1990s and in the 2000s. Both times it lost money. It increases the cost of handling complaints and appeals at the Internal Revenue Service, and it is far less efficient than simply increasing the collection budget of the I.R.S.

Worse, it fosters taxpayer abuse. The debts involved are ones that the I.R.S. has not been able to collect, in part because the taxpayers are too hard-pressed to pay up. A private company is probably not going to have better luck unless it uses abusive tactics.

And yet, private tax collection is an idea that keeps resurfacing. Why? One reason is that it would be a cash cow for the four companies likely to win tax-collection contracts, two in New York, one in California and one in Iowa.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, has argued in the past that using federal money to pay private companies for tax collection would create jobs at those companies. But it would be better to increase the I.R.S. budget to create middle-class public-sector jobs in professional tax collection than to throw money at low-paying private-sector contractors who cannot do the job as well.

 Thank you Senator Schumer for whoring for your debt collector campaign contributors.

This sh%$ is just evil.

Deep Thought

It can be annoying to have an ear worm, (a song that you cannot get out of your head) even when you like the song.

When the song in question is Peaches' F&$@ the Pain Away, and you have to be sure that you are not absent mindedly singing the lyrics at work, it gets positively aggravating.

Posted via mobile.

Live in Obedient Fear, Citizen

A small library in Lebanon, New Hampshire decided set up TOR on its network.

This was just shut down as a result of threats from the Department of Homeland Security:

Since Edward Snowden exposed the extent of online surveillance by the U.S. government, there has been a surge of initiatives to protect users’ privacy.

But it hasn’t taken long for one of these efforts — a project to equip local libraries with technology supporting anonymous Internet surfing — to run up against opposition from law enforcement.

In July, the Kilton Public Library in Lebanon, New Hampshire, was the first library in the country to become part of the anonymous Web surfing service Tor. The library allowed Tor users around the world to bounce their Internet traffic through the library, thus masking users’ locations.

Soon after state authorities received an email about it from an agent at the Department of Homeland Security.

“The Department of Homeland Security got in touch with our Police Department,” said Sean Fleming, the library director of the Lebanon Public Libraries.

After a meeting at which local police and city officials discussed how Tor could be exploited by criminals, the library pulled the plug on the project.

“Right now we’re on pause,” said Fleming. “We really weren’t anticipating that there would be any controversy at all.”

………

After Macrina conducted a privacy training session at the Kilton library in May, she talked to the librarian about also setting up a Tor relay, the mechanism by which users across the Internet can hide their identity.

The library board of trustees unanimously approved the plan at its meeting in June, and the relay was set up in July. But after ArsTechnica wrote about the pilot project and Macrina’s plan to install Tor relays in libraries across the nation, law enforcement got involved.

A special agent in a Boston DHS office forwarded the article to the New Hampshire police, who forwarded it to a sergeant at the Lebanon Police Department.

DHS spokesman Shawn Neudauer said the agent was simply providing “visibility/situational awareness,” and did not have any direct contact with the Lebanon police or library. “The use of a Tor browser is not, in [or] of itself, illegal and there are legitimate purposes for its use,” Neudauer said, “However, the protections that Tor offers can be attractive to criminal enterprises or actors and HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] will continue to pursue those individuals who seek to use the anonymizing technology to further their illicit activity.”

When the DHS inquiry was brought to his attention, Lt. Matthew Isham of the Lebanon Police Department was concerned. “For all the good that a Tor may allow as far as speech, there is also the criminal side that would take advantage of that as well,” Isham said. “We felt we needed to make the city aware of it.”

For those who don't speak the language of law enforcement threats, "Needed to make the city aware of it," means, "Threatening to link public officials to child porn."

The action taken by the library is legal, and is very much in the tradition of libraries promoting the free exchange of information, but the US state security apparatus cannot tolerate this, even though the US government is the largest single funder of this network.

Corbyn Wins in UK, Hopefully, This Presages Bernie in US

So, Jeremy Corbyn has won the election to lead the Labour Party, which means that after about 25 years, Labour will be an actually supporter of (small "L") labor, as opposed to the Blairite policies which favor the wealthy in general, and the City of London (their Wall Street) in particular.

What is particularly significant is that he absolutely crushed the opposition, and he did so with a voter turnout that puts Tony Blair's wins to shame:

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the British Labour party, in a stunning first-round victory that dwarfed even the mandate for Tony Blair in 1994.

He won with nearly 59.5% of first-preference votes, beating rivals Andy Burnham, who trailed on 19%, and Yvette Cooper who received 17%. The “Blairite” candidate Liz Kendall came last on 4.5%.

Minutes after his victory, Corbyn said the message is that people are “fed up with the injustice and the inequality” of Britain.

“The media and many of us, simply didn’t understand the views of young people in our country. They were turned off by the way politics was being conducted. We have to and must change that. The fightback gathers speed and gathers pace,” he said.

The north London MP is one of the most unexpected winners of the party leadership in its history, after persuading Labour members and supporters that the party needed to draw a line under the New Labour era of Blair and Gordon Brown.

Attention will now turn to who serves in Corbyn’s top team, with MPs such as John McDonnell, Angela Eagle, Sadiq Khan, Ken Livingstone and possibly leadership rival Burnham tipped for key roles. Liam Byrne, Mary Creagh and John Healey have also indicated they would be willing to serve on his frontbench.

………

Corbyn’s campaign has also been helped by a surge in new members and supporters who paid £3 to take part in the vote, leading to a near-tripling of those eligible to about 550,000 people. Throughout the campaign, he addressed packed rallies and halls, where he had to give speeches outside the buildings to crowds gathered in the street.

While his supporters will be jubilant about Labour taking a turn to the left, his triumph will be deeply disappointing to the parliamentary party, which overwhelmingly backed other candidates by 210 to 20.

………

In the campaign, he promised to give Labour members a much greater say in the party’s policymaking process, in a move that could sideline MPs. His key proposals include renationalisation of the railways, apologising for Labour’s role in the Iraq war, quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, opposing austerity, controlling rents and creating a national education service.

He is also likely to prove an obstacle to David Cameron’s ambition to launch airstrikes on Syria, although some Labour MPs could defy the whip to vote with the government.

I would expect that a significant portion of the Labour Party, particularly in Parliament, will be dedicated to undermining him. (Shades of McGovern in 1972)

Of course, if they do so by voting with the Tories, and against Labour on war, I think that they will be buying into a severe, and well deserved, sh%$storm at the next elections.

And of course on the donor side, we are already seeing the rich donors who were so courted by "New Labour" now throwing tantrums:

Labour's biggest private individual donor has pledged to stop giving money to the party now Jeremy Corbyn is leader and instead fund a group of MPs dubbed ‘The Resistance’.

John Mills, who gave £1.65 million under Ed Miliband, told The Telegraph that Labour would become a “protest” party under the hard-Left MP and warned his economic policies were unworkable.

He stands ready to “funnel” cash into Labour for the Common Good – the group set up by Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt – and think tanks looking to reinvigorate centrist thinking in the party.

It comes as with senior moderates due to go public with their concerns about the party's direction at a string of policy seminars being organised between now and Christmas.

We also have a large number of Labour "front benchers" indicating, at least for now, that they are uninterested in leadership roles under Jeremy Corbyn.

Clearly, they hope that the party will suffer in their absence, but it suffered in their presence, so make of this what you will.

In either case, it does appear that Corbyn has managed to populate his shadow cabinet:

Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, is facing the first test of his ability to lead the parliamentary party after appointing his closest political ally, John McDonnell, as shadow chancellor. [of the Exchequer]


The decision means that the five most senior positions will be filled by men, including Andy Burnham as shadow home secretary, Hilary Benn as shadow foreign secretary, and Tom Watson as elected deputy as well as Corbyn and McDonnell.

Corbyn’s biggest problem may now be the fierce resistance within the parliamentary party and even among some union leaders to the appointment of McDonnell, with some asking Corbyn to appoint Angela Eagle as shadow chancellor, to balance the shadow cabinet politically and by gender. Eagle was instead given the business portfolio and will also become shadow first secretary of state, deputising for Corbyn in the Commons.

McDonnell was Corbyn’s leadership campaign manager and has advocated nationalisation without compensation in the past as well as 60p tax rates. Among MPs, his appointment was seen as a disavowal of Corbyn’s commitment to create a political consensus.

Seeing as how the most recent "stand" by the Labour establishment was to abstain, as opposed to opposing, draconian cuts to the social safety net, because there were a few items in the bill that might have engendered mild support from some potential Labor voters.

For anyone who thinks that the political policies of the "New Labor", are wrong, I would point them to Ian Welsh's advice on this matter:

So, you voted for Corbyn. You’re a Labour party member, old or new. What MUST you do to have Corbyn’s back?

Because, be clear, he will fail without you. He will lose. He and a few allies within the Labour party cannot win this fight alone. He will be destroyed by lack of cooperation, scandals, and engineered crises. The vast majority of all media coverage will be negative, etc.

You must take over the locals—the branches and constituencies. Flood them. If the officers don’t act how you think they should, let them know. And by “let them know,” I mean, get in their faces.

Make sure your local MP, who probably doesn’t like Corbyn or support him, know that if he doesn’t get onside, he won’t be the nominee in the next election. Make his/her life personally unpleasant. If s/he votes against Corbyn, picket him. Mock her. Make sure there is a cost. Because on the other side, that MP will know that if they oppose Corbyn, they will be taken care of by the City and the other usual suspects.

You must prove there is a cost for opposing the democratic will of the majority of Labour party members. MPs and officials must know that if they try to sabotage Corbyn, their days in the party are numbered and will be extremely unpleasant.

The carrot is that if they get onside, they’re gold. They can keep their positions, they can feel like they’re part of a swelling horde.

This statement would be a good blue print for supporters of the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party.

One of the Facts of Running a Local Government Is That Making Your Government "Business Friendly" Never Pays

Of course, what I mean by "Business Friendly" is using tax abatements, creating dedicated infrastructure, or building stadiums.

When you pay companies to locate in your town, you always lose, and the latest case is the oil boom towns in North Dakota, which have discovered that by not making drillers pay their way, they raise costs for everyone else:

While the massive Bakken oil boom drew hordes of job seekers and international attention to the remote prairies of North Dakota and Montana in recent years, it’s turned into a money loser for most cities and counties in the region.

Crime in Dunn County, N.D., in the heart of the nation’s oil boom, skyrocketed 60 percent in just three years, and the road maintenance budget soared from $1.5 million to $25 million.

The local government couldn’t keep up, with demand for services outpacing the growth in tax revenue by as much as 40 percent. The problem continues as the drop in oil prices in the past year means increasingly less money for the county to spend on projects – while drilling, the truck traffic that eats up the roads, and demand for community services haven’t stopped.

“The gap between revenues and needs is still fairly large,” Daryl Dukart, a Dunn County commissioner, said in an interview. “It will take many years to balance out.”

Dunn County is far from alone. Analysis from researchers at Duke University found that “most local governments in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken region have experienced net negative fiscal effects” from the shale drilling boom.

The answer here is fairly simple: Make the newcomers pay their own way.

When thousands of very trucks tear up your local roads, charge tolls on them.

When their water demands require the construction of new sewer and water infrastructure, charge them for that too.

The oil is where the oil is. If drilling drops by 10% because the energy companies have to pay their own way, it's a net plus.

The idea that in the long term it will sort itself out, a sentiment expressed by a Dickinson, North Dakota City Manager Shawn Kessel, is a pipe dream.

In the long term, the oil boom goes bust, and you still have to pay for the infrastructure that is now sitting unused, as well as the mountains of toxic waste that will start showing up.

I learned a little bit by being raised by a city planner, and one of the lessons that stuck is that if you subsidize industries to locate in your town, it will be a net tax loser.

The 2^nd lesson is that most of the money in real estate is made through explicit and implicit subsidies that come from the local government in the form of tax abatements, zoning changes, and unpaid for infrastructure upgrades.

Natalie is Now at School………

Click for slideshow

---

Looking to the future


Still looking to the future


But first, tie my shoe


Good to go

We dropped her off at The American Academy of Dramatic Arts, and got all of her stuff unloaded.

Me met her roommate, and her roommate's family (her roomate's dad is a fan of The Who as well), and got all the eyes dotted and tees crossed, so we are good go go.

Natalie is spending her first night as a college student.

Before I said goodbye, I told he that she was going to be magnificent.  (Daddy pep talk, don't you know)

We are now back home, tired from the trip, and a little freaked about Natalie being all grown up.

I expect our cat Destructo (Natalie is his human) to bum out for a while.

(People who see this on Facebook, click through for the pictures)

Headline of the Day

Liberals Push to Correct Inequality — Just Not If It Involves Opening Up Our Neighborhood Schools.

It's a pity that the article that goes along with it, which I am not linking to, is a piece of crap generated by Campbell Brown's corporate whoring AstroTurf "educational" organization, where the entire thing is a screed about how liberals really should support education by and for Wall Street Charter Schools, because it means that a few brown faces in those schools.

It's an intellectually bankrupt piece, and willfully obtuse, as Matt Bruening (the link above) so ably notes:

You see, we know very well how to integrate schools along class and racial lines. It’s called busing and we used to do it. Yet, isn’t it weird that Williams never writes about busing? Isn’t it weird that you hardly hear a peep out of that entire gang about busing? Why don’t they advocate for explicit integration through busing instead of these charter schools which may or may not even have a desegregating effect (and even where it does, not nearly to the same degree as busing would). Isn’t it awfully convenient that these folks say they definitely care about school integration and inequality but refuse to advocate for the most effective solution for it?

When pressed on this, one of the responses you will hear is that they don’t see practically (speaking in political terms) how we can get busing. But why would people oppose busing, one has to wonder. Is it because they don’t want to send their kids to school with poors and blacks? But wait, isn’t that the same reason they don’t like charters? Isn’t the opposition the same to both things? Why advocate one thing that runs up against a brick wall due to racism and dislike of the poor but not another thing that runs up against the same brick wall?

There are two basic answers here.

The first is that the charters don’t promise integration (and in many cases brag about how segregated they are, e.g. KIPP gleaming about how uniformly poor and black their schools are). So the reformers sidestep the hurdle of the racist affluent white liberal by basically giving in entirely to their desire for segregation, which charters don’t threaten that much if at all.

The second is that practicality is defined here in terms of what you might call the Left Wing of the Fundable. You can get money to push for charter schools and privatization and breaking teacher/public unions (all things the education reformers push, including right now Students First pushing a SCOTUS case that aims to eliminate all public sector union security, not just for teachers). You can get a fellowship at a think tank to push for those types of things. They are thus practical in the sense that there are enough rich people and institutions with somewhat mixed interests that are willing to pony up the money necessary to push them through our hilariously undemocratic political system and to fund a healthy number of advocate jobs. The same money doesn’t exist for busing advocacy.

So who then is really the intrepid supporter for integration in all of this, I am left to ask. Is the education reformer who dare not say a peep about busing because it’s outside of the Left Wing of the Fundable and too radically integrationist the real no-nonsense advocate willing to say what needs to be said? I don’t think so.

The title has some real truth to it:  Far too many liberals call for problems to be fixed, and then recoil in horror when they discover that this involves the smallest sacrifice on their part (i.e. busing and cross district money transfers), but the rest of the article, which is so ably Fisked by Mr. Bruening, is bovine scatology.

In New York

Natalie moves into the AADA dorms tomorrow.

She is pursuing her dream of the theater, and doing so on the isle of Manhattan, 30^th and Madison.

It's the sort of adventure that every 18 year old should have.

I Haz a Sad

We are all packing to get Natalie to College.

My little girl is leaving home.

I remember holding her in the palm of my hand at her naming.

***sigh***

Posted via mobile.

It Was 16 Years Ago Today, Charlie Saroff Taught the Band to Play………

Happy birthday Charles E. Saroff.

Sometimes inconvenient, he came early and we had to divert to a closer hospital, and frequently funny, at his Brit Milah, he got laughs by peeing on my Dad, he has always marched to the beat of a different Crumhorn player.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

This Business Will Get out of Control. It Will Get out of Control and We'll Be Lucky to Live through It.

It appears that Russia may be building a military base in Syria:

The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia.

Russia has also requested the rights to fly over neighbouring countries with military cargo aircraft during September, according to the reports.

The claims, which will raise fears that Russia is planning to expand its role in the country’s civil war, will ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington over the future of Syria and its brutal ruler.

Mr Obama on Friday met King Salman of Saudi Arabia to repeat their demand that any lasting settlement in Syria would require an end to the Assad regime.

It leaves the US and Russia implacably opposed in their visions for Syria.

I would argue that the vision expressed by Obama is being driven by the House of Saud and the rest of the antediluvian absolute monarchies that dot the Persian Gulf.

They supported radical Islamic opponents to the Assad regime, because they want to replace a secular Arab regime with Sunni dominated theocracy, because, I guess, it worked so well in Syria.

………

“We are already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons,” he said during an economic forum in Vladivostok on Friday, according to the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency.

Until now, Russia's backing has included financial support, intelligence, advisers, weapons and spare parts. Mr Putin insisted it was "premature" to talk of a direct intervention.

………

Last week the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth cited Western diplomatic sources saying that Russia was on the verge of deploying “thousands” of troops to Syria to establish an airbase from which the Russian air force would fly combat sorties against Isil.

Those details appear to be backed by satellite images of a Russian base under construction near Latakia, according to anonymous intelligence officials quoted by several American newspapers.

"If they're moving people in to help the Syrian government fight their own fight, that's one thing,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “But if they're moving in ground forces and dropping bombs on populated areas, that's an entirely different matter."

Moscow increasingly justifies its support for the Assad regime by pointing to the rise of violent jihadists in Syria.

………

Syria is already home to Russia’s only base outside the former Soviet Union – a naval station in Tartus.

The reported build-up of military activity, centred on Latakia and Idlib province, is in areas dominated by the Alawite sect, which counts President Assad among its number.

The House of Saud, the other petty tyrants of the Persian Gulf, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the increasingly authoritarian, and increasingly unstable President of Turkey) have been actively supporting both the civil war and the most extreme religious fanatics in the region.

This did was a disaster in Libya, and it will be a disaster in Syria.

Getting rid of Assad in Syria would be a good thing, if the alternative were not immeasurably worse.

Of note, it appears that there are indications that the Russians might be sending Russian manned MiG-31s to Syria:

Rumours, comments and half-truths are very common in fluid environments such as this. Various news-outlets are offering different theories regarding a large-scale Russian operation about to start in Syria. With information and evidence being often sketchy at best, it is most likely that various players in and outside the region are trying to push their agenda, either vis-à-vis Syria or vis-à-vis Russia. Trusting partisan and biased information, i.e. MSM accounts quoting "official sources", would obviously be a mistake. That is why this piece offers a totally different read on the reasons and goals of the Russian move, just for the sake of argument.

Preventing a another Libya

Before getting to the core of the scenario that could explain events on the ground, it may be useful to recall the Libyan precedent: a "no fly zone" implemented by NATO under a UN-resolution was hijacked – in the Russians' view – to support the anti-Gaddafi insurgents and give them close air support for several months, until the Libyan dictator was finally ousted from power.

Ever since the start of the civil war in Syria, the Russians have always made it clear that they would not tolerate another version of the Libyan precedent. In 2013 already, Russian officials made numerous statements formally objecting to a "no fly zone". A few very strongly worded declarations by President Putin himself didn't leave any doubt as to the Russians' willingness to actively oppose such a development.

………

Based on the developments mentioned above, but also taking into account some of the recurrent background noise and chatter that can be heard way outside the beltway – remember Petreaus' suggestion about "Jabhat al Nusra reconcilables" or Anne-Marie Slaughter's recent call for a "no fly zone" over Syria – it is pretty easy to figure out what some of the armchair strategists in DC had in mind.

Quite simple in its premises, their strategy is based on increasing the tempo of Coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State, particularly in Syria, thus winning over public opinion for such operations, and supporting Kurdish YPG militias all over the North. At the same time, efforts – quite unlucky and unsuccessful so far – to recruit and train parts of the FSA, and possibly the "reasonable fringe" of Jahbat al-Nusra, are continuing.

The aim is to arm these groups and turn them loose – officially – on the Islamic State, giving them the same air support YPG groups have been receiving, provided the main thrust is against ISIS held territory or disputed areas. Territory that is firmly in the Syrian government's hands would be off limits in such a scenario, but given that these areas have become quite small in recent months, it is pretty safe to assume that about 75 % to 80 % of Syrian territory would be up for grabs.

In other words, the support of Kurdish peshmergas on the one hand, the help and training of "moderate" Syrian rebels on the other, would be combined with the benefits of a "no fly zone" or at least extensive air support. The official rationale for such a "no fly zone" would be solely the struggle against ISIS, of course, because that would be the easiest way – and actually the only one –to sell such a strategy to the US public.

………

Needless to say that if the Syrian air force was unable to support its ground troops not just in the North, but anywhere in Syria, the balance of power would inexorably shift towards the opposition groups and a de facto partition of Syria would be unavoidable. To the Russians, this is unacceptable. They may be willing to let Assad go, but not to abandon Syria as an ally and a Russian asset in the "grand game".

Syria is still a sovereign country and there hasn't been any UN-resolution that could bolster foreign intervention without the consent of the Syrian government. Furthermore, Syria has an extensive defense agreement with the Russian Federation and it would be perfectly within President Bashar al-Assad's prerogatives to call in Russian military help in his fight against "terrorism" or foreign aggression.

………

What came out of these talks – or should we say negotiations ? – is only rumour, but this rumour has it that a deal was struck for the nomination of a new intelligence chief, if a ceasefire and transitional phase are indeed implemented. The man for that job is supposedly no other than General Mustafa Tlass, formerly a close associate of the al-Assad clan, who jumped ship in 2011 but never formally sided with the rebels. He has been living in France ever since he left Syria.

Now of course, such a settlement to which the US administration would not have been part to would have the potential to drive the Neo-Cons, R2Pers and other D.C. hawks absolutely mad. Not only would it mean that the Syrian regime would not be destroyed, but it would possibly keep a strong foothold in Syrian politics, even if the country was to be partitioned along areas of influence. The biggest downside to such a negotiated solution though would be, that fighting the Islamic State could not be used anymore as a pretence for supporting the actions of the anti-Assad rebels.

The Syrians - and the Russians - certainly realize that contingency plans are also a necessity for them, whether the alleged settlement initiative succeeds or fails. The recent announcement of a second and larger Russian base on the Syrian coast is certainly part of such contingency plans. Both a naval base and a logistics base, it could help stabilize the heartland of the Al-Assad clan and bolster the Alawi minority's claim and dominance over these lands, cutting of any sea access to whatever Sunni/Jihadi political construct could be established further inland.

………

This is why the establishment of a "no fly zone" and increased operational tempo is so crucial to its most vocal proponents. Short of destroying the regime before any settlement is announced, Bashar al-Assad has to be weakened and his power base eroded to the point where even opposition groups currently willing to sign off on a negotiated peace might possibly change their mind.

This is the context in which Russian troop and equipment movements were recently spotted, allegedly. It all started on August 16th, when a Turkish News Agency (BGN) published a statement announcing that Russia had delivered 6 MIG-31s to Syria. Those planes' specifications and weapons systems make them an unlikely candidate for close air support to Syrian ground forces, which makes the delivery all the more interesting.

Actually, the MIG-31s, possibly with a Russian crew aboard, are interceptors. They are designed to track, identify and destroy hostile aircraft. The fact they were stationed in Mezze airbase, with a large Russian security and logistics detail, implies the Russians meant business. What aircraft could these planes be possibly intercepting though ? Obviously, not the Coalition jets flying missions against the Islamic State. The Russians aren't that mad … or dumb.

However, if a "no fly zone" was imposed over Syrian skies without any form of basis in international or UN-law, what would there be to prevent the Russians from answering a call for help from the sill legitimate Syrian government ? Now that would be a worrying development and it should be taken seriously ! However, should there be any truth to such a theoretical construct, the MIG-31s would probably target something totally different from Coalition fighter jets.

………

If you take Libya as the example of what the Russians want to avoid at all cost, it's fairly easy to guess what their interceptors would be looking for. It's not the Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey. They only have a limited reach, meaning they can destroy targets up to a distance of about 70 km, enough to interdict Syrian air force operations all along the border, but they are useless for any action deep in Syrian territory.

Furthermore, the Patriot's radars don't bring any added value when it comes to identifying enemy moves on the ground. The key component in both a "no fly zone" and in monitoring moves on and off the ground, all over Syrian territory, are AWACS warning and control aircraft.

The Coalition is currently using such aircraft. Several countries are equipped with such planes, notably the United States and Saudi Arabia, but also The United-Kingdom and France. As long as the areas of interest for possible coalition airstrikes are limited to territory close to an international border, AWACS planes can remain out of Syrian airspace.Their powerful radars can monitor anything that happens from a safe distance.

However, if the goal of the coalition was to extend "interdiction areas" or to create "safe areas" deep inside Syria, there would be only one way of doing this: AWACS planes would need to fly over Syrian territory, as any operation of that kind while remaining outside Syrian airspace would require a unreasonable number of planes to cover enough ground.

………

That is where the MIG-31s come in. Sending in these planes, their crews, as well as all the necessary logistics into Syria, could be a clear message intended at disrupting any idea the Coalition might have of establishing "safe zones", "security perimeters" or "no fly zones", whatever you want to call them, without actual backing from international law.

Based on current Syrian-Russian defence agreements, Russian – or Syrian – MIG31s would be fully justified in shooting down any aircraft deemed hostile over Syrian territory. The MIG-31s are well equipped for that kind of mission: they can take off and reach a flight altitude of over 30 000 feet in under three minutes, making them immune from any MANPADs the rebels might be armed with.

Coordinates of an AWACS plane - or any other aircraft for that matter - could be sent in from radar stations on the ground, and the signal could not be jammed nor intercepted. The MIG-31 is also equipped with multimode radar, allowing for onboard monitoring over long distances, and it is armed with BVR missiles that have a reach of up to 400 km. Due to the ballistic trajectory of these missiles, their interception also would be very difficult.

In other words, once they are in the air, the MIG-31s could fire their missiles and, at that point, nothing could stop them from reaching their target, whether that is an AWACS or possibly even a fighter jet preparing for close support mission of anti-government forces.

Now, of course, if an AWACS was shut down by a Russian jet, that could be the starting point to something like WW3. The Russians don't want that, and neither do we. So what this means, is that their troop deployment is signalling us something: they know what we are up to and they are not willing to let go of it.

This aircraft, NATO Designation Foxhound, an update on the MiG-25 Foxbat is a single purpose aircraft designed as an interceptor.

It is designed to do one thing, get to high altitudes and high speeds quickly, and fire big missiles at long ranges to shoot down other aircraft, particularly large and highly visible aircraft, like AWACS,

We really need to tell the House of Saud that we will no longer support their moves for Sunni hegemony in the region, nor will we support the (over a thousand years old) "Great Game" between Sunni and Shia.

Doing the House of Saud's bidding serves no one but the house of Saud.

While we are at it, perhaps it would be a good idea to drone the guy who founded ISIS, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as head of the Saudi intelligence services, was instrumental in getting the group up and running.

Running Education in Like a Business Means Overpaying Managers Who Loot the Institution

The Governor of Iowa, selected a new president for the University of Iowa, the state's flagship education institution, and it turns out that has no educational experience, and he has lied flagrantly on his resume:

But UI may not seem like such an attractive alternative these days. As the Yes Men performed at the press conference, the Iowa Board of Regents was in the final stages of selecting the next UI president. In a very unusual arrangement, the regents chose not to renew previous president Sally Mason’s contract two years ago; since then, she had been working “at will” on a day-to-day basis. If some observers worried that this arrangement would render her a tool of the regents, those fears were confirmed when Mason endorsed an ill-conceived regents funding plan that would significantly cut UI’s budget, infuriating many on campus.

Now, Mason is out: Eight days after the Yes Men’s visit, the Iowa Board of Regents unanimously voted former IBM and Boston Market executive Bruce Harreld as UI’s next president, despite Harreld having no university administrative background. He did work as an adjunct senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, but that’s the extent of his college workplace experience.

On the résumé Harreld submitted to the regents, he listed his current job as the managing principal for the Colorado-based Executing Strategy, LLC. This company “confidentially (advises) several public, private and military organizations on leadership, organic growth and strategic renewal.” However, that business doesn’t exist. The Colorado secretary of state has no record of a company of that name.

On Sept. 1, during a public forum that was part of Harreld’s on-campus interview and visit, I asked Harreld to explain this discrepancy. He replied that Executing Strategy was a company name he previously used and that he accidentally listed it in his current work history.

“Shame on me,” Harreld said. “I too quickly pulled it from out of my head and put it on the résumé. There is no Colorado corporation. I live in Colorado. That’s my post office box.”

His résumé also neglected to list the co-authors on his publications, attributing them solely to Harreld. The only part of his résumé that didn’t contain a glaring error was Page 3, which consisted almost entirely of personal information such as “Four adult children who all have advanced degrees” and “Elder, Presbyterian Church.” Given Harreld’s business background, one would think he would have taken more care with his résumé when applying to be the president of a major university.

Harreld’s public forum did not go well, to put it mildly. His rambling 35-minute presentation contained little more than vague generalizations and repeated catchphrases such as taking UI from “great to greater.” At times he rolled his eyes and looked exasperated while facing questions from students, staff, and faculty. When a UI staff member asked him what initiatives he might have planned to improve workplace morale, he replied, “I don’t know that I have any. Now what? Staff? I dunno. … What more would you like me to say?” Harreld then ended this exchange with an abrupt, “No, I’m done. OK? If you don’t mind.”

Is there anyone out there who believes that this guy was hired for anything but political payback?

This guy is going to be a complete clusterf%$#?

So Not a Surprise

It appears that a single minded focus on testing at the expense of education doesn't even work on other fill in the bubble tests like the SAT:

New statistics show that average SAT scores countrywide have dropped to their lowest level since the college admissions exam was redesigned in 2005, continuing a 10-year trend that education advocates say illustrates the failures of test-driven schooling.

According to the College Board, which reported the statistics on Thursday, the average SAT score for the class of 2015 was 1490 out of a possible 2400, with points declining on all three sections of the test—reading, math, and writing.

That raises an alarm for the The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), an education advocacy group, which said the latest SAT numbers highlight the failings of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and other standards-based scholastic achievement measures.

Bob Schaeffer, FairTest public education director, said in response to the latest statistics, "Test-and-punish policies, such as 'No Child Left Behind' have clearly failed to improve college readiness or narrow racial gaps, as measured by the SAT," adding that other standardized admissions exams like the ACT and the National Assessment for Education Progress show similar trends. 

 I would note that Obama, and His Evil Minions^™, in particularly the perfidious Arne Duncan, have been even more aggressive in pushing relentless testing and corporatized education and breaking the teachers unions than their predecessors, so don't expect this study to make any difference in policy.

Pass the Popcorn

Please Implicate Rupert ……… Pretty Please?

Mark Hanna, who used to work security for Rebecka Brooks, the former (and current) head of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper publishing in the UK, has promised to blow the whistle on her:

The former head of security for Rebekah Brooks has said he will blow the whistle on Rupert Murdoch’s UK newspapers, the day after it was confirmed she had been re-hired as chief executive of News UK.

In a video uploaded to YouTube, Mark Hanna, who was acquitted last year along with Brooks and her husband, Charlie, of plotting to pervert the course of justice, claims he was “extremely close” and trusted by executives at News International and he now wanted to show how “underhanded” they had been.

Hanna was the director of security at the company, now known as News UK. Unlike Brooks, who received a payout of more than £16m after resigning from News Corp in 2011 and has been reinstated, Hanna was made redundant after the trial and received £30,000 from the company.

“I am now standing up against those that sit back and treat us all with contempt – the Murdochs and Brooks of the world,” Hanna said in a two-minute video released on Friday.

Hanna, who is unemployed and living on benefits, said the decision by Murdoch to reinstate Brooks four years after the phone-hacking allegations and the closure of News of the World had infuriated him and many others.

………

He claims that during the trial at the Old Bailey he sat with Brooks, Andy Coulson, Ian Edmondson, Clive Goodman, Charlie Brooks, Cheryl Carter and Stuart Kuttner and witnessed what went on behind the scenes.
“To me, her previous director of group security, this is Murdoch’s middle finger being shoved right in my face after standing trial with her, and others, in what was classed as the trial of the century during which it was widely accepted that I should never have been involved.”

I really don't expect anything to happen to any of the people at News UK, at least not while the Tories are running the government. They are too close to Murdoch, as evidenced by the fact that Andy Coulson, who was deputy editor of the News of the World during the phone hacking, went on to be Tories Communication Director, and then Cameron's Director of Communications after he won election.

If Coulson becomes a disgruntled ex employee whistle blower, it could get ……… inconvenient ……… for Prime Minister Cameron.

TransCanada Appears to be the Washington Generals of Pipeline Construction

Clearly, there was an Earth Shattering Kaboom

Yes, another one of their pipelines has demonstrated that it functions better as a pyrotechnic display than they are as transmission device for fossil fuels:

The cause of a natural-gas pipeline rupture near Emerson which forced two Manitoba families to evacuate their home remains under investigation.

A spokeswoman with TransCanada, which operates the pipeline just south of the Canada-U.S. border in Kittson County, Minn., said Monday the company continues to conduct "a detailed investigation to determine the cause of the incident."

The rupture occurred Saturday night around 8:30 p.m., sending flames shooting up into the air.

The nearby local volunteer fire department in Emerson was called out to the fire, said Emerson fire chief Jeff French.

"You could see it from miles away," French said, describing flames six to 10 metres high and three to five metres wide near the site of the explosion.

Two homes on the Canadian side of the border were evacuated and residents were allowed back inside by 11 p.m. Saturday.

Yep, another pipeline blew up.

Of particular interest is the sidebar for the article, which details a pattern of problematic safety failures:

1. Otterburne, January 25, 2014

A natural gas pipeline operated by TransCanada ruptured, sending a massive fireball into the sky during the winter of 2014 in Otterburne, a small community about 60 kilometres outside of Winnipeg. The explosion would force Manitoba Hydro to shut down natural gas flows to thousands of customers in the area, leaving some residents without heat for day. A pre-existing crack present for over 50 years was the culprit in a gas line explosion, a Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation found.

2. Brookdale, April 14, 2002

A TransCanada Pipelines gas line ruptured, exploded and caught fire two kilometres west of the village of Brookdale, northeast of Brandon. The explosion created two craters — one at each end of the ruptured section of pipe — and burned for nearly four hours.

About 100 people were evacuated within a four-kilometre radius of the blast, but there were no injuries.

The investigation found that, similar to the Rapid City blast, stress corrosion cracking was found to have caused the explosion. It was unusual in this case as the affected pipe was coated with asphalt and buried in non-corrosive soil. It was discovered that the combination of the pipe’s coating separating from the surface, a fluctuating water table, the presence of anaerobic bacteria and other factors all combined to create a corrosive environment.

3. St. Norbert, April 15, 1996

At a spot where a TransCanada gas pipeline crosses the La Salle River, gas escaped from a crack in the pipe, caught fire and an explosion destroyed a nearby home. The explosion also left a 13.5-metre-wide crater on the bottom of the river and damaged hydro lines and trees on both sides of the river. No one was injured.

The investigation found “environmental assisted cracking” to be the cause. A shift in the river slope led the pipe to move and stress out a crack in the pipe that may have been present since the pipeline was laid in 1962.

4. Rapid City, July 29, 1995

A TransCanada Pipelines gas line ruptured and caught fire near Rapid City, north of Brandon. An adjacent gas pipe also ruptured and caught fire which damaged a third line.

The incident left a 51-metres wide crater that was five metres deep. One TransCanada employee suffered minor cuts and bruises.

The investigation found the first rupture was caused by stress corrosion cracking, the slow growth of small cracks in an environment capable of corroding a pipe. The second rupture was partly the result of a delay in shutting down the flow of gas to the first pipe.

Note that this is just in Manitoba, and in 2 of the 4 cases, cracks in the line were unobserved for decades, and in a 3^rd case, the rupture was mismanaged.

As Charlie Pierce observes, , "Pretty plainly, TransCanada puts its pipelines in the ground and then you're on your own, rube. At this point, I wouldn't buy a bucket from these clowns, let alone a continent-spanning death funnel."

I will note that pipelines for bitumen, the vaguely oil like crap that comes from the tar sands, is nowhere nearly as well understood as that of oil or gas, so it would be problematic even for a pipeline operator that was able to find its ass with both hands.

In Your Face Bill Gates

Basically, they said that the structure of charter schools, public funds but no public review or public accountability, violate the state constitution:

The Washington State Supreme Court, in a late Friday surprise, delivered a ruling that the state’s voter-passed, billionaire-backed charter school initiative is unconstitutional.

The high court’s 6-3 ruling found that the independently organized schools do not pass muster as common public schools and therefore cannot receive public funding.

“We hold that provisions of Initiative 1240 that designate and treat charter schools as common schools violate article IX, Section 2 of our state Constitution and are void,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the majority opinion.

“This includes the Act’s funding provision, which attempts to tap into and shift a portion of moneys allocated for common schools to the new charter schools authorized by the Act. Because the provisions designating and funding charter schools as common schools are integral to the Act, such void provisions are not severable …”

………

I-1240 passed by a 1 percent margin in 2012, after charter schools had previously been rejected three times by Washington voters. Ninety-eight percent of its $10 million-plus war chest came from just 21 individuals. Bill Gates put up $3 million, Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton gave $1.7 million, Vulcan Inc. (Paul Allen’s development company) was good for $1.6 million, and liberal entrepreneur Nick Hanauer donated $1 million. The father of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos gave $500,000.

………

In another telling passage from Madsen’s opinion, the court stated: “Under the Act (I-1240), charter schools are devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operations.”

“The Supreme Court has affirmed what we’ve said all along — charter schools steal money from our existing classrooms and voters have no say in how these charter schools spend taxpayer funds,” said Kim Mead, president of the Washington Education Association.

(emphasis mine)

Of course, over at Curmudgucation, Peter Green offers a modest proposal^* to deal with this ruling:

………

So, find ways to rewrite the law so that charter money can stay in its own little lock box in its own big silo. This seems a bit overthought and overwrought. The court's decision, as I understand it, is based on the idea that charter schools cannot receive "common school" public funds because they are not overseen by an elected school board. And if that's the case, charters can fix this very easily. Are you paying attention, charter operators? I have your solution right here.

Just submit to being overseen by an elected school board.

Act like the public schools you claim to be. Make your finances and operation completely transparent to the public.

And allow yourselves to be overseen by an elected school board instead of a collection of individuals who are not answerable to the voters or the taxpayers.

I mean-- what's more important to you? Providing a strong educational alternative for those 1,200 students, or holding on your ability to do whatever you want without having to answer to the public? Is it so important to you that you not be accountable to the public that you would rather engage in time consuming rewrites of state law, or even just close your doors, rather than let yourself submit to transparent and open oversight by a group of citizens elected by the very taxpayers whose money you use to run your school?

We already know that charter schools are prone to overpaying their founders, forcing kids out who would bring down their test scores through abuse of the disciplinary process, and ignoring federal law on disabilities, so adding oversight to ensure that contracts, discipline, and special education policies is not a bad idea.

The impetus for charter schools have come from two sources, those people determined to destroy teachers unions because they hate unions, and the financial types who see a profit center funded by the general public.

Neither of these groups can tolerate the idea of transparency or due process, because it makes it too difficult for them to accomplish their nefarious goals.

H/t Diane Ravitch for pointing me to Mr. Greene.

^*Yes, this is a allusion to Jonathan Swift's essay.