Tuesday, 8 September 2009
How many 'patriots' could do this?
The Boy Who Heard Too Much
"One of them here's name is Danielle, and her father," the caller continued. "And the reason why I'm doing this is because her father raped my sister."
The caller, who identified himself as John Defanno, said that he had the 18-year-old Danielle and her dad tied up in their home in Security, a suburb of Colorado Springs. He'd beaten the father with his gun. "He's bleeding profusely," Defanno warned. "I am armed, I do have a pistol. If any cops come in this house with any guns, I will fucking shoot them. I better get some help here, because I'm going fucking psycho right now."
The 911 operator tried to keep him on the line, but Defanno cut the call short. "I'm not talking anymore," he snapped. "You have the address. If I don't have help here now, in the next five minutes, I swear to fucking God, I will shoot these people." Then the line went dead.
Officers raced to the house, ready for an armed standoff with a homicidal suspect. But when they arrived, they found no gunman, no hostages, no blood. Danielle and her father were safe and sound at home — alone. They had never heard of John Defanno, for good reason: He didn't exist.
Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Back to School Event Arlington, Virginia September 8, 2009
Monday, 7 September 2009
Tackhead - I'm Afraid of Americans
From the forthcoming 'Sharehead' album.
Fueling Our Security: The Need for a Defense Energy Strategy
Peter W. Singer, Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative
The Washington Examiner
Whether you believe global climate change is caused by human-driven carbon emissions or unicorn flatulence, it is inarguable that the issue of energy is an enormous national security concern. Our nation's dependency on nonrenewable and often foreign sources of energy does everything from bolster the power of illiberal regimes that control oil reserves to indirectly finance terrorist groups. Yet, even if none of these factors was in play, a new report out by the Brookings Institution, titled "Fueling the Balance," argues that our nation needs a defense energy strategy because of simple military pragmatism.
Our Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy not just in America, but the world. It burns more petroleum in the course of its operations than any other private or public organization, as well as more than 100 nations, including Sweden, Pakistan and Iraq.
While some might weigh the environmental ramifications, we should think about this dependency in the way those in uniform must. Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are bound by what one Marine general called "the tether of fuel." Roughly half of these operations' logistics is solely the movement of fuel, most of which is not even for combat vehicles. Indeed, three of the four least fuel-efficient Army vehicles are trucks that haul fuel, echoing how Civil War armies had massive mule trains that followed them, ironically carrying mostly hay for the mules.
This doesn't just tie our forces down to long supply lines, vulnerable to enemy attack, but costs soldiers' lives. An Army study found that a mere 1 percent improvement in energy efficiency would mean that troops in Iraq would have to serve on 6,444 fewer convoy missions, a role considered one of the most dangerous in the operation.
The financial costs are also considerable. In 2007, the military consumed 5.5 billion gallons of petroleum at a price of $12.6 billion. This figure reached roughly $20 billion in 2008 and is rising. The same massive use happens at military bases, which burn more than 30 million megawatt hours of electricity per year, costing more than $2 billion. Ninety-eight percent comes from the civilian market, which also makes our bases highly susceptible to the increasing spate of large-scale outages (caused by accidents and over-demand, as well as cyber-attack).
These costs are best understood as severe lost opportunities. For instance, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs our military $1.3 billion. This is equivalent to a loss of almost the entire U.S. Marine Corps' procurement budget.
In short, thinking "green" about military energy would make our forces more agile, save lives, and increase the part of the military budget that actually gets spent on troops and new weapons rather than lining the pocket of some foreign leader or oil speculator. But while the Pentagon has recently made baby steps with a few pilot energy savings programs, it doesn't have an overarching strategy that sets clear goals or policy for the years ahead.
The energy issue is of such importance that it should be established in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the document that determines the Pentagon's overall vision of strategy, programs and resources every four years. With the next QDR due to Congress in early 2010, a closing window of opportunity must not be missed.
This is not just a matter of recognizing the climate issue or lauding the few, already existing programs, as often happens in such documents. In order to drive real change, a defined target finally needs to be enunciated in Defense Department energy use, such as a policy goal to be a net-zero energy consumer at its bases by 2030. This will guide action, as well as help provide top cover to the innovative programs being worked on at lower levels to unleash our forces from the tether of fuel.
Underlying this should be goals to shift all bases to "smart" power grids, fully account for the costs of fuel in deciding which systems to buy (just like buyers are doing now in "Cash for Clunkers"), and support research competitions into technologies to help the force reduce its dependency, as well as benefit the civilian market.
The issue of energy has too long been looked at only through an environmental lens, and real action too often deferred. It is high time we address the long-standing irony of fueling our national defense from a source that threatens our nation's security.
@ 'Brookings'
William S. Burroughs - A Man Within (Trailer)
The film, which chronicles Burroughs’ life, including his childhood, death of his wife, the 1966 banning of his novel Naked Lunch by the U.S. government, and more, features exclusive interviews with past collaborators, Thurston Moore and Lee Ranaldo of Sonic Youth, Laurie Anderson, Throbbing Gristle’s Genesis P-Orridge, directors John Waters, Gus Van Sant, and David Cronenberg, Jello Biafra, and Iggy Pop. You seriously should check out the clip of Iggy’s insane commentary in the trailer above.
If that’s not enough to make you want to see this movie, what if I told you that Sonic Youth provide the soundtrack and it’s narrated by actor Peter Weller? That’s right, RoboCop himself.
Check out the trailer above or go here for the official site.
Via 'Twenty Four Bit'
Lydon reforms PIL
God! Was it that long ago?
I was actually at that gig at The Rainbow and well, it was an interesting Xmas day but to my ears the songs on that first album just were not that good, apart from obviously 'Public Image' itself, and I also always had problems with 'Belsen Was A Gas'.
Wobble WAS magnificent though.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
How UK Government spun 136 people into 7million illegal file sharers
The British Government's official figures on the level of illegal file sharing in the UK come from questionable research commissioned by the music industry, the BBC has revealed.
The Radio 4 show More or Less - which is devoted to the "often abused but ever ubiquitous world of numbers" - decided to examine the Government's claim that 7m people in Britain are engaged in illegal file sharing. The 7m figure comes from the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property, a Government advisory body. The Advisory Board claimed it commissioned the research from a team of academics at University College London, who it transpires got the 7m figure from a paper published by Forrester Research.The More or Less team hunted down the relevant Forrester paper, but could find no mention of the 7m figure, so they contacted the report's author Mark Mulligan. Mulligan claimed the figure actually came from a report he wrote about music industry losses for Forrester subsidiary Jupiter Research. That report was privately commissioned by none other than the music trade body, the BPI.
As if the Government taking official statistics directly from partisan sources wasn't bad enough, the BBC reporter Oliver Hawkins also found that the figures were based on some highly questionable assumptions. The 7m figure had actually been rounded up from an actual figure of 6.7m. That 6.7m was gleaned from a 2008 survey of 1,176 net-connected households, 11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software - in other words, only 136 people.
@ 'PC Pro'
You can listen to the BBC Radio 4 show 'More or Less' here or download it here.