The projects that moved, their new code names, and the agencies that took them over haven’t previously been disclosed. Sources aware of the transfers declined to speak on the record for this story because, they said, the identities of the specific programs are classified.

Knowledge of everything is too compelling a thing to give up. After all, total awareness corrupts totally.

» Share on Facebook

Foresman likened his agency’s role during any Internet attack to an orchestra conductor, coordinating responses from law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military and private firms. The government’s goal is a “symphony of preparedness,” Foresman said.
(via Seattle Post Intelligencer)

(via Boing Boing)

» Share on Facebook

Luntz states, “Those who define the issue will determine the outcome.” And, fortunately, we can now learn exactly how the conservatives plan to define the issues by having a look at one of Luntz’s own publications, which begins, “Learning from 2004… Winning in 2006” (PDF, 8.8MB). First released–to our knowledge–on Daily Kos last February, if you haven’t seen this document already, it’s definitely worth a read.

(via Daily Kos)

» Share on Facebook

In a CNet article, Declan McCullagh writes:

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you’ll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.
…
Why did these ID requirements get attached to an “emergency” military spending bill? Because it’s difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief.

Free-thinking individuals may want to pay a visit, or find other ways to protest this bad idea.

» Share on Facebook

While Baxley’s so-called “leftists” are “indoctrinating” their students, are the latter sitting in silent submission? To the contrary, the Academic Freedom Abuse Center, housed on the Students for Academic Freedom website, has been collecting student-submitted reports of “rights abuse.” Among them is a report by a student who complained because her professor suggested men and women might see colors differently. And, submitted last month, another complaint reads as follows:

This complaint applies to the discriminating nature of grading of my English teacher. She knows I’m an advancer of conservative ideas b/c I where a “W” t-shirt to class on sometimes. Ever since the 1st day of class when I wore my “W” shirt she has treated me cold and been discriminating in grading my essays. On the last one, I wrote about how family values in the books weve read aren’t good. I know the paper was pretty much great because I spell checked it and proofred it twice. I got an D- just because the professor hates families and thinks its okay to be gay.

While most colleges already have rules ensuring free expression, ACLU-Ohio says that such bills “would shift the responsibility … from highly trained faculty to the state government or the courts,” thus discouraging teachers “from teaching anything controversial.” A variation of the bill, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2003, has made inroads in other states.

(via MetaFilter)

» Share on Facebook

Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. … The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as “widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species.” Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would also be expected.

But we don’t have to rely on mere studies and theory, since there’s already a precedent. The Prudhoe Bay oil field (near the arctic preserve) has been in production since the 70s, and has been an incredible success, if, by success, you mean making an absolute a mess of things.

Drilling proponents say that “only” 2000 acres would actually be used for a new facility, but other studies have argued this to be fallacious. In the New York Times Paul Krugman wrote:

…that picture is a fraud. Development won’t be limited to a small enclave: according to the U.S. Geological Survey, oil in ANWR is scattered in many separate pools, so drilling rigs would be spread all across the coastal plain. The roads linking those rigs aren’t part of the 2,000 acres: they’re not “production and support facilities.” And “surface acreage covered” is very narrowly defined: if a pipeline snakes across the terrain on a series of posts, only the ground on which those posts rest counts; bare ground under the pipeline isn’t considered “covered.”

Finally, let’s look at the proponents’ other projections: The time it would take to set up a production facility–around 10 years–as well as the minimal yield–around 2% of demand–all point to this being more of a short-sighted political move than an effort to mitigate our need for foreign oil.

» Share on Facebook

Senate Democrats have used the filibuster for only 10 of Bush’s 204 judicial nominees, while one-third of Clinton’s appeals court nominees from 1995 through 2000 were kept off the bench, some delayed for as long as four years.

So when Hatch classifies the use of filibusters as “unfair, dangerous, partisan and unconstitutional,” and says they create a “constitutional crisis,” he is succumbing to a particularly pitiable brand of hypocrisy.

(via AlterNet)

» Share on Facebook

The survey of the agency’s scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

» Share on Facebook