From NY1:
The city health department is getting ready to spray parts of Staten Island, Queens and the Bronx in order to control mosquitos.
The operation starts this Friday and lasts through Tuesday, weather permitting between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Queens
• Douglaston/Oakland Gardens (Alley Pond Park)
• Linden Hill/College Point (Abandoned Flushing Airport)
• Edgemere/Somerville (Dubos Point and Edgemere Park)
• Flushing (Flushing River)
They’re seeing red in the Golden state.
From Reuters:
California’s controller said on Wednesday that he would have to issue IOUs in a week if lawmakers can’t quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit, and the state’s treasurer plans to tap a reserve fund to meet debt service costs.
The measures came as a budget crisis deepened in the most populous U.S. state and the gridlocked legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts.
Why the gridlock? Because Dems want to makes cuts and raise taxes and Republicans won’t let them. They say that massive cuts need to be made, and that’s fair politically, but we’re getting into some pretty dire territory at this point and I don’t see how cutting health care and school funding is going to help California in the long run.
But back to the IOU situation…
“Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression,” Controller John Chiang said in a statement announcing that he would be forced to use IOUs to pay the state’s bills beginning on July 2.
“The state’s $2.8 billion cash shortage in July grows to $6.5 billion in September and after that we see a double digit freefall,” Chiang said. “Unfortunately, the state’s inability to balance its checkbook will now mean short-changing taxpayers, local governments and small businesses.”
They say they plan to solve some part of it by issuing bonds, but that’s not as surefire as it once was since rating agencies may downgrade them.
No easy answers in this debate, but that’s where we’re at right now.
More as it develops…
Source: Donklephant RSS Feed
Joe the Plumber
Real American
Dear Mr. Plumber,
It's great to read that you're still in the average guy business. I was getting a bit worried we'd never hear from you again after you dumped the GOP, but thankfully, you're still a big draw with the "get liquored up and shoot things" crowd.
Gosh, I wish I could have been there. I hear those Independence Institute alcohol, tobacco, and firearms parties are a lot of fun. What more could a real American man want beyond a big ol' shotgun with a long full-choke barrel, a humongous cigar, and all the booze you can drink.
I imagine a lot of lesser Americans might look at such an event and make snide little remarks about compensation and feelings of inadequacy. Screw them. They just don't understand the joy of sucking on a long thick cigar or the power one feels when a hot load explodes from the tip of your Mossberg.
Sounds like your speech was a big hit too, but I think you could have added a little clarity to your statement that America had been a "great nation for over 180 years." That confused a lot of people and opened you up to a little mockery.
You could have avoided all that by simply explaining that the United states did not become a great nation until after the first friction "strike anywhere" matches became available here, sometime in the late 1820s. I mean, gosh, how would we spend our free time if we didn't have those little flames to look at--so pretty, so hot, so dangerous.
And sure, sometimes the matches speak to us, and tell us to do bad things, and maybe sometimes we do them, but it's all worth the trouble isn't it--the excitement of the firetrucks, the thrill that comes from thinking about the lacy thong you're secretly wearing as you talk to the fireman; you know what I mean.
Heterosexually yours,
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Despite days of planning for the rally, numerous RSVP’s, and months of preparing to go after Letterman by the right wing, the Fire Letterman Rally (picture above) didn’t come off as planned. There were estimates of only 36 to 50 people who weren’t satisfied with Letterman’s apology showing up.
The rally might have been a flop but Letterman still was able to make numerous jokes about the attacks on him during the monologue. The show started with an announcement that “CBS would like to apologize in advance to everyone Dave insults tonight. He means well but but he’s just an idiot.”
The monologue began with instructions for everyone in the audience to come forward when Dave calls their name to pick up their apology. He promised to get through this as quickly as possible so everyone could get to the Fire Dave Rally and he said his son is telling everyone at school that his father is Conan. While the jokes were primarily directed at himself he did make some jokes about Sarah Palin saying that Palin accepted his apology and “she also accepted a $500 gift certificate from Lens Crafters.” He said he was nervous about the apology to Sarah Palin so to get his confidence up he rehearsed by apologizing to Tina Fey.
Letterman also presented the Top Ten Things Overheard at The Fire David Letterman Rally:
10. David Who?
9. Well, it was nice of CBS to provide the catering.
8. We should have done this years ago.
7. What idiot turned Broadway into a pedestrian mall?
6. Isn’t there always a crowd demanding Letterman be fired?
5. March around the potholes, people.
4. Can we also get CBS to bring back ‘Gunsmoke’?
3.When does Cheney get here with the waterboarding gear?
2. He should apologize for that hairpiece.
1. Thanks for coming, Regis.
Source: Liberal Values RSS Feed
Peter Scoblic is the executive editor of The New Republic and the author of U.S. vs. Them, which is now out in paperback.
Like my colleagues, I am rapt by the sight of the Iranian protests. In fact, listening to NPR's coverage from Tehran this morning, I found myself rapt by the sound of the protests, the kind of roar that only a stadium-sized group of people can produce. It's an inspiring moment in Iranian politics. But I think the fact that Richard is surprised and impressed by the breadth of American support for the protesters betrays a misunderstanding of the differences between idealists and their critics-differences that I think are both more subtle and more stark than he realizes.
For one thing, I don't accept the suggestion that if one is not an idealist, one is necessarily a cold-blooded realist. Although there are certainly those who believe that the internal affairs of other countries are irrelevant or unimportant, it is possible to care about human rights while questioning America's ability to influence the internal affairs of other countries and while doubting that our values and our interests are always synonymous. The United States has other priorities as well. Thus one can be skeptical of the efficacy and wisdom of diplomatic and military pressure in the name of human rights without being amoral. Moreover, although realism may be "cold," its ideological opposite, which puts the nature of regimes at the center of our foreign policy, is even more problematic. In this view, one espoused chiefly by conservatives and neoconservatives, the fact that a regime is good or evil becomes not simply a moral observation but a strategic guide. Idealism's concern with regimes, in other words, can rapidly deteriorate into a dangerous Manichaeism.
Take, for example, John McCain, whose stalwart support for Georgia last year Richard cites favorably. As John Judis has pointed out, McCain's assertion that "we are all Georgians" was not simply a statement of solidarity with a people, it was a suggestion (backed by McCain's support for Georgian admission to NATO), that our strategic interests-read: our willingness to fight a war-line up with those of the government in Tbilisi. That is a questionable assertion and a serious commitment. McCain's ostensible "idealism" has also led him to deride talks with North Korea as "appeasement" and to scoff at the idea of engagement with Iran, even though diplomacy is really our only chance, however thin, at nuclear rollback. Indeed, the moral allure of Manichaeism frequently breaks down at the level of action. When Jake Tapper asked McCain what would happen in Iran, he blandly (and unconvincingly) insisted that "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail."
I think it is possible to have a foreign policy that harbors no illusions about the nature of enemy regimes, but that recognizes our limited capacity to change those regimes and therefore our need to engage them. I think it is possible to have a moral foreign policy that is not moralist. But how, exactly, do we pursue our idealist instincts without sabotaging the security of the United States and our allies? How can we be appropriately self-interested without being utterly selfish? These are the questions we're wrestling with right now. At first glance, the answers may seem to differ only in balance and degree. (Does one speak loudly and decry the evil of the mullah-cracy in order to support the protestors, or does one hold back, recognizing that interference could backfire not only against Mousavi's backers but against American interests more broadly?) But these are not simply tactical questions, as Richard writes, they are the manifestations of fundamentally different worldviews, which is to say they represent different assessments of our strategic priorities and our capabilities.
On these difficult questions, I think the Obama administration has come down in the right place thus far. Supporting a fair election aligns the United States with those in the streets while holding the Iranian government to the standards it claims to uphold. It preserves our ability to interact with either a Mousavi or an Ahmadinejad government while simultaneously tightening our bond with the Europeans, who have voiced their distress at the election and whose cooperation we need to pressure Iran to halt its uranium program. This approach may be less satisfying than full-throated support for the "liberals," by which I think Richard means those who would overthrow the regime. (It is possible, after all, that Ahmadinejad did win the election). But it allows us to do the right thing while also doing the smart thing.
--Peter Scoblic
Source: The Plank RSS Feed
Google is putting millions of users at risk of fraud from hackers and needs to enable encryption by default on its most popular web apps, including Gmail and Google Docs, a gaggle of security researchers told the search giant Tuesday in an open letter.
At issue are the current default settings for Google’s popular web applications. The settings use the secure “HTTPS” protocol only for logging in, and fall back to unencrypted browsing thereafter. If a user doesn’t know how to force Google to use HTTPS full time, he’s vulnerable to a host of nasty hack attacks when using an open or badly secured network, particularly a public Wi-Fi spot.
Most of the web’s cloud computing applications leave users just as vulnerable to having their e-mail and social networking accounts hijacked, the letter admits, but the collection of security professionals is leaning on Google to take a leadership role.
“Few users know the risks they face when logging into Google’s Web applications from an unsecured network, and Google’s existing efforts are little help,” the letter reads. “As a market leader in providing cloud services, Google has an opportunity to engage in genuine privacy
and security leadership, and to set a standard for the industry.”
The 37 signatories to the letter (.pdf) include the country’s top encryption and security experts, ranging from Ron Rivest — the inventor of some of the most popular encryption tools — to Rsnake, one of the net’s most agile good-guy hackers. The posse seems to have been called together by Christopher Soghoian, a computer researcher, programmer and privacy provocateur.
The letter notes that Google locks down other applications, such as Google Voice, Health, AdSense and AdWords, by running all their traffic — not just the login — via the https protocol. That’s how banks run their sites, since that encrypts the communication between a user’s browser and company’s servers, making it virtually impossible for a hacker to get at the data in transit. That’s important, given how often people use open and untrusted wireless connections that can easily be snooped on.
Currently, Google’s web apps do require users to log-in via https, but after that, most users check their email, read their documents and look at their calendars “in the clear.” That means any ne’er-do-well with the brains to install WireShark or Linux can sit in a cafe, using their packet sniffer to check, read, and look along with them. Even worse, a clever attacker can “side-jack” the user’s cookie and actually log-in to those services at the same time the user is in them. From there they can edit and delete your documents, scour your email for sensitive data and even send out mail under your name.
Google responded Tuesday morning, saying that it is already ahead of the pack by even offering HTTPS, and that the company is looking into whether it would make sense to turn it on as the default for all Gmail users.
“Free, always-on HTTPS is pretty unusual in the e-mail business, particularly for a free e-mail service,” Google engineer Alma Whitten wrote Tuesday morning on Google’s security blog. ”It’s something we’d like to see all major webmail services provide.” The company is planning a trial where small samples of different types of Gmail users will be shifted to a default HTTPS to see how fast things load, how happy users are and what networks or computer setsups fair badly, according to Whitten.
“Unless there are negative effects on the user experience or it’s otherwise impractical, we intend to turn on HTTPS by default more broadly, hopefully for all Gmail users,” Whitten wrote, noting that the extra cost associated with the computing power needed for encyrption was not holding the company back.
For right now, the security problems can largely be solved currently by into Google’s options and changing the “Browser Connection” setting from ‘Don’t always use HTTPS ‘ to ‘Always use HTTPS.’ Firefox users can also use the Customize Google extension to fix the problem for many Google applications, and others can force Google to use HTTPS for a particular session by going directly to a Google HTTPS address, rather than being redirected there. (Note, the last solution doesn’t stop so-called sidejacking attacks unless users also change the Google account SSL option).
So why hasn’t Google switched on HTTPS for all accounts?
Well, according to Google’s own post, the default to HTTP was made for speed and user experience reasons. HTTPS sessions involve a lot more computation on both sides of the transaction, and that also means more load on Google’s servers — which easily translates into larger expenses for the company. And that’s good enough security for users of a secure wireless or a wired network, unless there’s an intruder in the network or someone is spying on all of an ISPs’ internet traffic.
The letter’s signatories say Google engineers can solve any technical problems with always using https.
“Google’s engineers have created a low-latency, enjoyable experience for users of Health, Voice, AdWords and AdSense – we are confident that these same skilled engineers can make any necessary tweaks to make Gmail, Docs, and Calendar work equally well in order to enable encryption by default.
Shorter version of the letter: What do we want? H T T P S! When do we want it? Now.
UPDATE: This post has been updated Tuesday morning to include comment from Google.
Photo: An Enigma machine, a sophisticated encryption tool used by Germany in WWII. English codebreakers managed to reverse-engineer the system, leading to much havoc for the German navy. Flickr/Kevin Bocek
See Also:
Source: Threat Level RSS Feed
YES! YES! YES! Bring Cap back!!!
Over two years ago, Steve Rogers died; this summer, he will be REBORN.
Beginning on July 1, writer Ed Brubaker and artist Bryan Hitch present CAPTAIN AMERICA REBORN, a history-making limited series spinning out of CAPTAIN AMERICA #600, on sale now, and centered on the return of Steve Rogers, the original Captain America, to the Marvel Universe. For Brubaker, it represents a pivotal turning point in a saga he has been building for over five years.
"REBORN is the next chapter in the larger story that I've been building in [CAPTAIN AMERICA] since issue #1," explains the writer, who launched this current volume in 2004. "This is a chance to really explore how things have changed in the years since Steve's death and really delve deep into who Steve Rogers is and why he became Captain America. It's a really a [story] with two or three different plotlines that all intertwine, which is a lot of fun and allows us to have [both] in-your-face action and quiet character moments."
"We've been planning the story of Cap's return virtually from the moment that he died," reiterates editor Tom Brevoort. "[As] the story developed and we embraced theconcept of Bucky as the new Cap, events elongated naturally, [but] you'll be able to look back into [CAPTAIN AMERICA #25] and the issues that followed and see the assorted seeds we planted once we reveal what's been going on in REBORN."
Source: Marvel
If I had to chose my favorite comic book superhero, it would be between Captain America and Batman.
Cap appeals to my idealistic side and Batman appeals to my angry side.
