tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-205880252024-03-08T12:57:24.544-08:00DeltaninRuminations on politics, technology, and of course the usual general poorly-masked self-adulation.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-77896805943082397522008-01-03T15:39:00.000-08:002008-01-03T16:18:43.715-08:00Princess Bride as National PoliticsSome stuff I wrote back on one a heady day in Sept 2006, where The Princess Bride and US Politics collided with terrifying results. Reposted here just so I have it handy somewhere.<br /><br /><strong>Bush: </strong>Cheney, you know how much I love watching you work... But, I've got my country's fifth 9/11 anniversary to plan, my Iran war to arrange, my detainees to torture, and Democrats to frame for it. I'm quagmired.<br /><hr /><br /><b>Congress:</b> A war?<br /><b>Bush:</b> That's right. When most of you were my age, diplomacy was called war. And this is a special war. It was the war my father used to fight when I was little, and he used to play up to his legislature... And today I'm gonna pitch it to you.<br /><b>Congress:</b> Has it got any danger in it?<br /><b>Bush:</b> Are you kidding? Terrorists, dictators, deserts, ethnic tensions, oil, WMDs, skirmishes, urban warfare, reconstruction, nation-building...<br /><b>Congress:</b> Doesn't sound too bad. I'll try to stay awake.<br /><b>Bush:</b>[Sarcastically] Oh, well, thank you very much, very nice of you. Your vote for the AUMF is overwhelming.<br /><hr /><br /><b>Democrats:</b> We haven't killed or caught Osama.<br /><b>Bush:</b> What?<br /><b>Democrats:</b> We still haven't gotten the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. I'm explaining to you because you look nonchalant.<br /><b>Bush:</b> I wasn't nonchalant. Maybe I was a little bit "too busy in Iraq" but that's not the same thing.<br /><hr /><br /><b>Congress:</b> You never said anything about torturing prisoners.<br /><b>Bush:</b> I've hired you to help me start a war. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.<br /><b>Congress:</b> I just don't think it's right, torturing suspects who may or may not be innocent.<br /><b>Bush:</b> Am I going MAD, or did the word "think" escape your lips? You were not brought on to infringe on my executive authority, you hippopotamic land masses!<br /><b>Some Democrats:</b> I agree with them.<br /><b>Bush:</b> Oh, the appeasers have spoken. What happens to them is not truly your concern. I will order their interrogations. And remember this, never forget this! Since I have been in office, you were such a minority, you couldn't get a federal minimum wage hike! <br /><b>Bush:</b> [To congress] And you! Bickering, slow, hapless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to what you were? LEGISLATING... UNDER A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT?!<br /><hr /><br /><b>Bush:</b> They didn't surrender? ISLAMOFASCIST-able!<br /><b>Democrat:</b> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.<br /><hr /><br /><b>Saddam:</b> Oh, what I wouldn't give for a holocaust to destroy some kurds.<br /><b>Short-lived crony:</b> There, we cannot help you.<br /><b>Rumsfeld:</b> [Showing chem/bio data and imports] Will this do?<br /><b>Saddam:</b> Where did you get that?<br /><b>Rumsfeld:</b> From President Reagan. It works so well on Iranians, he said I could bring them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-91766156091693073632007-12-31T13:59:00.000-08:002007-12-31T14:12:00.519-08:00The pocket veto, and Congress being "in session"Recently President Bush has said that he will "pocket veto" a recent bill. This involves using a clause in the US Constitution where if the President doesn't sign a bill <span style="font-weight:bold;">and</span> Congress is not in session it is automatically voided.<br /><br />The problem is that the Senate is currently in "pro forma" sessions, where they do just enough to be technically operating. This was done for another reason (blocking recess appointments) but has a bearing here. <br /><br />Some have argued that the pocket veto can be used in this case. I disagree. To quote the US constitution:<br /><br /><blockquote>Article 1, Section 7: <br />If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, <b>unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.</b><br /></blockquote><br /><br />That's the pocket veto in bold. So the key phrase is "Congress must be Adjourned". What does it take to do that?<br /><br /><blockquote>Aticle 1, Section 5:<br />Neither [House of Representatives or Senate], during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two [sections] shall be sitting.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Did the Senate consent to the House of Representatives being out of session? I doubt it. Therefore the House of Representatives and the people in it are, in a phrase, AWOL, and Congress is not Adjourned, and the pocket veto cannot be used. QED.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com95tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-72910159639876712012007-09-21T13:47:00.000-07:002007-12-18T10:34:25.245-08:00Lying Statistics: When people bring up Congressional approvalOne of the things that really bothers me is when people throw around the phrase "Democrat-controlled Congress" and "Approval rating".<br /><br /><blockquote>There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.<br/><br /> —Benjamin Disraeli</blockquote><br />Usually, it's because they make the implicit assumption that "People rate Congress poorly" and "Democrats have a slight majority in Congress" add up to "People rate Democrats poorly". Given the statistics available, this is false.<br /><br />So, after pointing people to the right statistics over and over, I'll just put it in this blog post because I'm sick and tired of ersatz wit from smarmy conservative partisans saying "Hah, the Democrats suck [even worse than Republicans], look at Congress' approval rating!"<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://img112.imageshack.us/my.php?image=approval2nx7.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/8972/approval2nx7.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><br /><!-- old ver<br /><a href="http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=approvalwn5.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1990/approvalwn5.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><br />--><br /><br />My prime exhibit is a set of polls conducted by the Washington-Post and ABC-News. In these polls, they actually asked questions about <i>why</i> voters are giving Congress a low approval rating.<br /><br /><h2>Why separate ratings? Whole-Congress Polls don't mean much.</h2><br />Congress has traditionally polled badly, and is not uncommon for them to poll worse than the President. This is generally because when people rate Congress unfavorably, it doesn't reflect on the people in it they like—it's always the other side that is the problem. Even people who are in Congress can say nasty things about the institution, because then they look like "reformers" and "mavericks".<br /><br />At any rate, the claims people make out of the statistics rely on a fundamental logical flaw: People won't rate Congress the same way they rate Democrats-in-Congress, and they are not interchangeable statistics and Congress' rating cannot be used to support the idea that people like Bush because of it.<br /><br /><h2>Myth #1: "People disapprove of Democrats, who control Congress"</h2><br />Fact: While the Democrats currently control congress, it is by a very slim margin. In fact, Republicans are still a near-equal force and are using the filibuster to maintain influence.<br /><br />Fact: People disapprove of Republicans in Congress more than Democrats in Congress. In the most recent December poll, the group "Democrats in Congress" had an approval ratings of 40%, versus 32% for Republicans and 32% for Congress overall.<br /><br />Congress' ratings, lower than the usual low, appear to be sinking more due to public dissatisfaction the Republican half.<br /><br /><h2>Partial-Myth #2: "People are angry at the Democrat-controlled-congress for not getting anything done"</h2><br />This is only a partial myth, because the reason <i>why</i> people are angry is important, and often ignored by Conservatives. The September poll shows 55% of respondents find Democrats are "not going far enough" to oppose the current war policy, and this likely explains their eroding popularity.<br /><br />However, the other part is general Congressional activity. In the same September poll 82% said that Congress has accomplished "not much" or "nothing" this year, but in a followup question 51% blame "Bush and Republicans in Congress" while 25% blame "Democrats in Congress". This supports the theory that people are mainly dissatisfied that Democrats are still "not doing enough" when it comes to the war. While Democrats may be seen as ineffective, people see Republicans as the real obstacle.<br /><h2>Myth #3: "Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress! HAHAHAHAH!"</h2><br />Closely tied to Myth #1, we see that it's more accurate to say that Bush has a higher rating than <i>his own party</i> in Congress.<br /><br /><hr/><br />Poll links:<br /><ol><br /><li>Oct 2007 poll: <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100307.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100307.html</a><br /></li><br /><li>Nov 2007 poll: <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110407.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110407.html</a><br /></li><br /><li>Dec 2007 poll: <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_121107.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_121107.html</a><br /><li>July 2007 poll: <a href='http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ssi/polls/postpoll_072307.html'>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ssi/polls/postpoll_072307.html</a><br /></li><br /></ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-45324046203837790532007-09-04T15:19:00.000-07:002007-09-04T15:45:51.280-07:00Habeas Corpus: Cases of invasion or rebellion?One of my favorite examples of the Bush Administration's nefarious activities has been the case of Jose Padilla. Basically, the President had a US citizen from US soil imprisoned without charges, lawyer, or a conviction, etc., completely bypassing the normal US court system. It's the kind of arguably criminal offense which is surely just cause for impeachment.<br /><br />Anyway, one of the common responses that Bush apologists have is that Bush is allowed to do that because it's an emergency of some sort. However, that's not what the constitution says. Let's review two relevant pieces of law:<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><b>US Constitution, 5th amendment</b><br/>No person shall [... or] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law<br /><br /><b>US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9</b><br />The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />So we see here two very specific requirements by US Constitutional law: The government can't jail anyone without it being part of a law, and usually everyone has the right to <i>habeas corpus</i>, or the right to challenge their imprisonment or punishment as unlawful, or--specifically--in violation of the Fifth Amendment.<br /><br />Here's the argument I'm rebutting: Some people claim that Bush is allowed to suspend Habeas Corpus, either because "We're at war!", or because "They're a terrorist, that's rebellion!"<br /><br />The first argument does not stand up, because whatever kind of war we are in, it is <b>not</b> the kind which would "require" our court system to abandon habeas corpus. Maybe if we were beseiged by an army of the living dead (or telemarketers) and the normal court system could not function... but thankfully that's not the case.<br /><br />The second argument does not stand up because the "cases of rebellion or invasion" clearly do not refer to what the suspect is accused of. If you need more proof, consider this: The law would be totally toothless if it were true. <br /><br />Why would anyone bother to write it? It would offer zero protection against a corrupt Executive branch. All the dictator would have to do is change the trumped-up charge from "unpatriotic speech" to "rebellion", substituting one false or unlawful charge for another.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-71430026358364969322007-08-01T12:41:00.000-07:002007-08-01T12:45:13.610-07:00Senate Vote TabulatorThe <a href='/2007/07/senate-votes-and-userjs.html'>previously mentioned</a> Senate vote tabulator is done, although I still haven't gotten around to scraping multiple pages at once.<br /><br />You can download it from <a href='http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/11075'>here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-2944258900645360802007-07-31T12:28:00.000-07:002007-07-31T12:42:11.860-07:00Experts-exchange deobfuscatorHere's a little something I ended up with. Someone on Digg mentioned a de-obfuscator for experts-exchange.com postings, and looking at it I realized it used ROT13 but did an AJAX call to someone's free rot13 service, which seemed a little inefficient. (And impolite)<br /><br />So here's a version that does it locally and also does it better by only converting actual text in the posting.<br /><br />(Kudos Code2HTML)...<br /><br /><pre><br /><font color="#444444">// ==UserScript==</font><br /><font color="#444444">// @name Experts Exchange Deobfuscator</font><br /><font color="#444444">// @author Terr </font><br /><font color="#444444">// @namespace http://deltanin.blogspot.com/ </font><br /><font color="#444444">// @version 1.0.0</font><br /><font color="#444444">// @description Makes content in experts-exchange visible.</font><br /><font color="#444444">// @include http://www.experts-exchange.com/*</font><br /><font color="#444444">// @include http://experts-exchange.com/*</font><br /><font color="#444444">// ==/UserScript==</font><br /><br /><font color="#444444">/*<br /> Merged from two scripts<br /> http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/10747<br /> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jjlammi/rot13.html<br /> <br /> Improved with better text conversion by using the DOM to find text nodes<br /> instead of changing innerHTML.<br />*/</font><br /><br /> <font color="#2040a0"><strong>document</strong></font>.addEventListener(<font color="#008000">'load'</font>,function (e) <font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font> <br /> <strong>function<font color="ff0000"> rot13init</font><font color="2040a0">()</font>{</strong><br /> <strong>var</strong> map <font color="4444FF">=</font> <strong>new</strong> <font color="#2040a0"><strong>Array</strong></font>()<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>var</strong> s <font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"</font><font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <br /> <strong>for</strong> (<strong>var</strong> i<font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i<font color="4444FF"><</font>s.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i++)<br /> map[s.<font color="a52a2a"><strong>charAt</strong></font>(i)] <font color="4444FF">=</font> s.<font color="a52a2a"><strong>charAt</strong></font>((i+<font color="#FF0000">13</font>)%<font color="#FF0000">26</font>)<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>for</strong> (<strong>var</strong> i<font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i<font color="4444FF"><</font>s.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i++)<br /> map[s.<font color="a52a2a"><strong>charAt</strong></font>(i).<font color="a52a2a"><strong>toUpperCase</strong></font>()] <font color="4444FF">=</font> s.<font color="a52a2a"><strong>charAt</strong></font>((i+<font color="#FF0000">13</font>)%<font color="#FF0000">26</font>).<font color="a52a2a"><strong>toUpperCase</strong></font>()<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>return</strong> map<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><br /> <strong>function<font color="ff0000"> rot13</font><font color="2040a0">(rot13map,a)</font>{</strong> <br /> <strong>var</strong> s <font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">""</font><font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>for</strong> (<strong>var</strong> i<font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i<font color="4444FF"><</font>a.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i++)<br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <strong>var</strong> b <font color="4444FF">=</font> a.<font color="a52a2a"><strong>charAt</strong></font>(i)<font color="4444FF">;</font> <br /> s+<font color="4444FF">=</font> (b<font color="4444FF">></font><font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#008000">'A'</font> <font color="4444FF">&</font><font color="4444FF">&</font> b<font color="4444FF"><</font><font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#008000">'Z'</font> <font color="4444FF">|</font><font color="4444FF">|</font> b<font color="4444FF">></font><font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#008000">'a'</font> <font color="4444FF">&</font><font color="4444FF">&</font> b<font color="4444FF"><</font><font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#008000">'z'</font> ? rot13map[b] : b)<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><br /> <strong>return</strong> s<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font> <br /> <br /> <strong>var</strong> elems <font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#2040a0"><strong>document</strong></font>.getElementsByTagName(<font color="#008000">"div"</font>)<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>var</strong> todo <font color="4444FF">=</font> []<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>for</strong>(<strong>var</strong> i <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i<font color="4444FF"><</font> elems.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i++)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <strong>var</strong> elem <font color="4444FF">=</font> elems[i]<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>if</strong>( elem.className <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"answerBody quoted"</font>)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <strong>if</strong>( elem.getAttribute(<font color="#008000">"id"</font>) <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"intelliTxt"</font>)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> todo.push(elem)<font color="4444FF">;</font> <br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><strong>else</strong> <strong>if</strong>( elem.className <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"blur"</font>)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> elem.className <font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"seethru"</font><font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><strong>else</strong> <strong>if</strong>(elem.className <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#008000">"hasMouseOver"</font>)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> elem.onmouseover <font color="4444FF">=</font> function()<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> elem.onmouseout <font color="4444FF">=</font> function()<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font> <br /> <strong>var</strong> rot13map <font color="4444FF">=</font> rot13init()<font color="4444FF">;</font> <br /> <strong>for</strong>(<strong>var</strong> i <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i <font color="4444FF"><</font> todo.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> i++)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <font color="#444444">/* We're inside a comment, but they can have BR tags as well as text. Only work on text.*/</font><br /> <br /> <strong>var</strong> elem <font color="4444FF">=</font> todo[i]<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <strong>for</strong>(<strong>var</strong> j <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="#FF0000">0</font><font color="4444FF">;</font> j <font color="4444FF"><</font> elem.childNodes.<font color="#2040a0"><strong>length</strong></font><font color="4444FF">;</font> j++)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <strong>var</strong> subnode <font color="4444FF">=</font> elem.childNodes[j]<font color="4444FF">;</font> <br /> <strong>if</strong>(subnode.nodeType <font color="4444FF">=</font><font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#FF0000">3</font>)<font color="4444FF"><strong>{</strong></font><br /> <strong>var</strong> newnode <font color="4444FF">=</font> <font color="#2040a0"><strong>document</strong></font>.createTextNode(rot13(rot13map,subnode.nodeValue))<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> elem.replaceChild(newnode,subnode)<font color="4444FF">;</font><br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font> <br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font> <br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font><br /> <br /> <font color="4444FF"><strong>}</strong></font>,false)<font color="4444FF">;</font> <br /><br /><br /></pre>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-79854321588073418702007-07-27T23:03:00.001-07:002007-07-27T23:07:02.207-07:00Senate Votes and UserJSWell, I've accomplished a dubious achievement, melding the areas of politics and programming.<br /><br />I've just finished a UserJS script—a type of Javascript module which several popular browsers support—that will automatically calculate a 3x3 table when you visit a senate roll call vote page, showing how groups voted.<br /><br />Of course, I don't really want to visit each and every one of the 478 cloture votes since 1989 personally, but it does get me a step closer to automatically scraping that data.<br /><br />And yes, I first tried Python and XML libraries, but unfortunately the Senate webmaster doesn't seem to think that XHTML is important.<br /><br />I'll be posting the script up on UserJS.org when I get a chance.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-53190276902414266122007-07-26T16:12:00.000-07:002007-07-26T16:21:35.210-07:00Internet Explorer SucksI'm posting this mainly so that anyone else with the same problem won't tear as much hair out as I have.<br /><br />I'm using Javascript to add new content to a page via the DOM methods. The page is set as XHTML transitional. With IE6 and IE7, I'm having stupid rendering bugs.<br /><br /><ul><li>When you make an HTML table, it does not display in IE6 or IE7. In order to make it display, you must wrap your row elements within a <tbody> element. According to the HTML 4.01 spec, this is actually an optional element.<br /></li><li><br /></li><li>A table cell's "rowspan" and "colspan" attributes are ignored by IE7, unless you capitalize the letter S on the attribute! This is in violation of the XHTML spec which says that all attributes should be lowercased. (Not tested in IE6)<br /></li></ul><br />Remember kids, friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-58027179002337456802007-07-23T13:58:00.000-07:002007-12-31T14:35:58.305-08:00Who likes the filibuster now?Well, I hadn't anticipated using this blog again--my personal site has been pretty much in permanent-under-construction status since starting my current job.<br /><br />Anyway, with the recent <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6785603,00.html">filibuster</a> in the Senate, I decided to re-examine some old history and congressional records--with surprising results. Last Wednesday, I decided to try to present the results to some sites like <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/">ThinkProgress</a> or <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/">Crooks & Liars</a>, but nobody has gotten back to me so I decided to dust this blog off.<br /><hr /><br /><br />Recently there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding "filibusters" in the senate, so I set out to try to check the record. Just how much was this tactic used and who probably used it?<br /><br />In the last several years, most talk of filibusters have actually been about cloture votes, where the Senate needs 60 members to vote showing that they are ready to make a final vote on the subject. Most notably, during 2005 Democrats used this method to block the appointment of several judicial nominees, and the Republicans threatened to change the rules via the so-called "Nuclear Option" to bypass it.<br /><br />Now, Democrats have a slim Senate majority, and Republicans are using some of the same tactics party leaders once decried.<br /><br />But how <em>much</em> are they doing it? Let's look at the numbers for the Senate, considering when it was, how many days they were working, and how often a cloture vote failed. I'll use the acronym "FPD" to describe the assumed number of "Filibusters per day" of Senate activity. (Note that I had the rows horizontally sized to make a visible chart, but blogger strips out style attributes.)<br /><br /><table border='1' cellspacing='0'><tr> <th>Year</th> <th>Days</th> <th>Failed Clotures</th> <th style="width:200px">FPD</th> </tr><tr> <td>2001</td> <td>173</td> <td>8</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='46' height='0'/><br/>0.046</td></tr><tr> <td>2002</td> <td>149</td> <td>13</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='87' height='0'/><br/>0.087</td></tr><tr> <td>2003</td> <td>167</td> <td>22</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='132' height='0'/><br/>0.132</td></tr><tr> <td>2004</td> <td>133</td> <td>14</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='105' height='0'/><br/>0.105</td></tr><tr> <td>2005</td> <td>159</td> <td>5</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='31' height='0'/><br/>0.031</td></tr><tr> <td>2006</td> <td>138</td> <td>12</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='87' height='0'/><br/>0.087</td></tr><tr> <td>2007</td> <td>108*</td> <td>19</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='176' height='0'/><br/>0.176</td></tr><tr><td colspan='4'>*Ongoing session</td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />One important caveat to these statistics is that I cannot say what number of failed cloture happened specifically to block legislation. But with the basic assumption that the minority party cannot initiate these votes and has the most reason to block them, some interesting numbers still emerge.<br /><br /><table border='1' cellspacing='0'><tr> <th>Period</th> <th style="width:200px">FPD</th></tr><tr> <td>2005: Republican's "Nuclear Option" threat</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='31' height='0'/><br/>0.031</td></tr><tr> <td>2001-2006 average: Democrats in minority</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='81' height='0'/><br/>0.081</td></tr><tr> <td>2007: Republicans in minority</td> <td><img src='http://www.blogblog.com/rounders2/icon_arrow.gif' width='176' height='0'/><br/>0.176</td></tr></table><br /><br /><ul><br /><li>Compared to 2005, when Republicans were threatening to change the rules, FPD is <strong>5.67 times higher</strong> now that Republicans are the minority.</li><br /><li>Compared to the Republican-majority 2001-2006 years, overall FPD is <strong>2.18 times higher</strong>.</li><br /><li>The current year has the highest FPD than any of the previous years shown.</li><br /></ul><br /><br />The implications are not good for Senate Republicans: It suggests that—now that positions are reversed—they are willing to filibuster more often than the Democrats previously labeled "obstructionists" for doing the same thing.<br /><br /><br />Sources:<ul><br /><li><a href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm">Senate Action on Cloture Motions</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Resumes.htm">Résumé of Congressional Activity</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/">Days In Session calendars</a></li></ul><br /><br /><b>Update</b>: Ideally, I'd prefer to replace "failed cloture votes" with "votes where most of the votes against it came from the minority party, and where most of the minority party participated". It would be a much better metric. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get those figures from the Senate records, although if enough people show interest I may reconsider the effort.<br /><br /><b>Update</b>: As 2007 draws to a close, I wanted to update the stats for 2007: The FPD ficgure is virtually unchanged, following the level I calculated back when I wrote this post. (~1% increase of the FPD)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1144264747071285752006-04-05T12:12:00.000-07:002006-12-18T23:59:50.516-08:00Alive, but Busy.Yep. Busy. Amongst other things, the joys of multicast sockets and bayesian statistics. Joy.<br /><br />Maybe I should post here more versus comments in threads and forums. Or even better, start some wiki-like structure so when the umpteenth person describes former Iraqi General Georges Sada as "Saddam's closest adviser" and touting "the fact that he piloted 86 missions flying weapons of mass destruction to Syria" all of them "on directions from Saddam Hussein"... Or claiming that the Westboro Church protestors (Their slogan: "God hates fags") are somehow <i>liberals</i> for protesting at military funerals of posthumously-outed servicemen? (Hint: Which party is in favor of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage? Not Democrats...)<br /><br />Debunking things just gets tiring. Some of them practically deserve form letters. Is there some sort of moderately left-of-center wiki for this stuff? Some sort of snopes.com thing? I used to be idealistic--I'd just write a careful response and that would be that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1141842752409341072006-03-08T09:54:00.000-08:002006-03-21T22:56:47.450-08:00Enabling Terrorism?I was just thinking about this on the bus. What makes terrorism effective? Clearly, the "terror", which is right there in it's name. Take the fear away from terrorism, and it's something else. Sabotage. Murder. Of course, we think of 9/11. The big terror event that will leap to the fore in such discussions, <i>hopefully</i> for years to come. (That is, I'm hopeful something <i>worse</i> doesn't come along for years.)<br /><br />While tragic, it's not an issue of lives-lost, and statistics bear this out. In America, more people died in 2002 from choking on non-food objects than died from terror attacks in the last ten. <br /><br />Financially... I'm not sure about direct financial losses, but I'd argue most of the losses are in the form of market behaviors, which leads to my next point:<br /><br />Fear. It is the essence of terrorism. To act to spread fear, and to influence a country through that fear. I see some conservatives label others as "enablers" of terrorism. Often, this accusation boils down to not being willing to give up our rights in order to "protect" them with foreign-policy escapades. Or believing in rule-of-law. Objecting to the torture of prisoners. etc. <br /><br />It's a loony accusation. So I have my own accusation, which is also a bit loony. I wouldn't want to straight-out advocate it, but here it is: Many of the war-hawks are also enablers. They enable terrorism... by spreading fear of terrorism, constantly trying to refresh that fear, enhancing it's main detrimental effect for their own ends. In the current UAE ports deal kerfluffle, it's interesting to see that this blade has two edges, and has rebounded against the Bush Administration.<br /><br />A second, far less loony accusation, can be made in terms of what the war-hawks of today have done in the past. Training and arming Osama Bin Laden and his compatriots (as a force against the Russians) comes to mind. Or less terror-ish items, like giving Saddam Hussein biochemical weapon components, even after his alleged gassing of civilian Kurds. Installing a dictator into Iran, and trying to send him nuclear technology... But I digress.<br /><br />Why can't they remember that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1141755121978725942006-03-07T09:58:00.000-08:002006-03-07T10:23:56.606-08:00Where does a person begin?... Probably not at Birth. I'm posting prompted by something I saw <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_firedoglake_archive.html#114168014066824702" target="_blank">Firedoglake</a>.<br /><br />There's been a push by certain sectors of the "Religious Right" (read: Evangelicals, megachurches, mixes of politics, religion, and business) against abortion for quite a while. One of the major rifts in the debate is where life begins. Or, to be more precise, at what point we have a "person" deserving of legal protection by the government, and when that protection trumps the rights of the mother to control her own body and biology.<br /><br />One of the more extreme views (but surprisingly common) is that once the sperm and the egg meet, you've got a person, and killing that person is like murder/manslaughter/homicide/etc. I really disagree with this viewpoint.<br /><br />Here's something I posed to some Campus Republicans two months ago:<br /><blockquote>Through whatever circumstances, you are faced with a really shitty choice:<ul><br /><li>You can see two TV screens, one with a microscope's view of a hundred little post-conception cells on one video screen, and another of one newborn baby in a cradle.</li> <li>You know neither personally.</li> <li>You don't know where they are in the world.</li> <li>You know nothing more about their circumstances.</li> <li>You know you will never personally encounter any of them or experience external repercussions from your choice. </li><br /></ul><br />Now, for whatever reason, you must choose between them, and failing to choose means the death of the cells and the baby. What will you pick? <br /><br /><hr width="30%"><br /><br />If the person undergoing this choice really believed the rhetoric, they would choose to save the hundred little cell bundles, correct? A hundred lives, compared to one? But I cannot see anyone seriously choosing the blastocysts or embryos over the baby. <br /><br />So here's what I'm trying to get at: You express your real belief through choices. The rhetoric of the "un-born baby" at or closely after conception is hollow, because I cannot imagine any sane individual actually going through with the hypothetical situation presented and choosing to save the petri dish over saving the newborn.</blockquote><br /><br />None of them gave a real answer. It's a wildly improbable situation, but the rhetoric being used by the person-at-conception folks is so strong and clear: According to them, you save the cells. Period. Strangely, I haven't found any of them (yet?) who really want to give an answer to this question, even when their stated beliefs are so unambiguous. Probably because it shows how silly they are when actually applied. <br /><br />So to any conservative readers (10% of zero readers total?): If you want to answer, choose. If you don't like the question because it's too vague, tell me why. That's why I put all those bullet points in about what you do and don't know about the situation.<br /><br /><i>P.S.: Experimenting with HaloScan comments instead of Blogger comments. No important comments were lost in the transition, needless to say.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1141668787346596352006-03-06T10:13:00.000-08:002006-03-06T10:13:07.346-08:00Not Dead......Yet. <br /><br />After March 27th I may be able to commit to posting more stuff here. Time-wise, I don't think I'll be a daily updater. Heaven knows I'm enough of a shut-in to manage it so long as I don't procrastinate on real-world projects.<br /><br />I have a large three-month-long project starting in a few weeks, which I will just hint (ever so archly) as an original creation that may be marketable. It could also end up like unmarketable crap which I would be horrified to have in my digital portfolio, but that's all in the future. I'll try not to let it induce me to go on hiatus again.<br /><br />Lastly, I re-enabled comments (not that there were any worth reading) but I enabled moderation as well.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1138169352285170172006-01-24T22:04:00.000-08:002006-02-02T11:17:21.746-08:00Indefinite HiatusWhen I started the blog, I underestimated how much work I have on my plate here. Plainly put, I don't think I have time to make updates as regularly as I ought to and have viewers. Additionally, I've now tried out blogger, and found it a little lacking for what I want. Maybe next time I'll dust off my ancient web-server and try a DIY solution. But for now it looks like I'll be busy finding and moving into a new place, doing paying work, and keeping occupied with some 3D programming. Farewell for now, my practically-zero viewers!<br /><br /><hr width="50%"><br /><br />Okay, I lied. A little. Maybe second thoughts. Maybe a bout of insanity... No promises.<br /><br />I hate to be someone who just reposts links and quotes, but I saw this <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html" target="_blank">on wiretapping contradictions</a> from the Bush administration and it was too good to pass up. (But I really do need to do more on my research project instead of blogging.)<br /><br />So, building on my <a href="http://deltanin.blogspot.com/2006/01/politics-bush-and-spying.html">previous post</a>, here are the basics as I know them:<br /><ul><br /><li>The Administration started these wiretaps before 9/11. In 2002, Senator DeWine (R-Ohio) introduced an amendment for the PATRIOT act.</li><br /><li>That amendment would have significantly downgraded the amount of proof necessary for wiretapping <i>non-US-Citizens</i> under the FISA act, which established the FISA court.</li><br /><li>In the process, the Department of Justice was asked to give an opinion. They said: "Nah, we're fine. The laws we've got are fine. We don't need to do this, and besides, it might not be constitutional."</li><br /><li>In the end, the amendment was rejected by Congress.</li><br /></ul><br />Why is this important, you ask?<br /><ul><br /><li>Congress rejected a much weaker version (because it was for non-citizens) of what Bush now claims they implicitly said he could do by saying: "Go get the 9/11 guys". So that argument is even weaker than it was before.</li><br /><li>The Bush administration has recently been claiming that they <i>had</i> to do these wiretaps because the existing legal alternatives weren't good enough. But that contradicts what they said back in 2002.</li><br /></ul><br /><br />One possible conclusion: Their spy program was discovered, so they're either lying to cover their asses, or they were lying back when it was secret. And it's not the kind of lying that can possibly be covered by the need for secrecy or anything like that. It's plain old contradictions about public policy.<br /><br /><hr width="50%"><br /><br />The American Prospect has a <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=10924" target="_blank">neat summary</a> showing that claims that Abramoff "directed his clients to donate Democrats" are on very shaky ground indeed.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1137100373379281442006-01-12T13:10:00.000-08:002006-01-12T15:14:31.656-08:00Politics: Abramoff Scandal UpdateIn other news, it's gratifying to see that some of the counter-spin (as <a href="http://deltanin.blogspot.com/2006/01/politics-why-abramoff-scandal-is.html"> posted here</a> and by other folks) is managing to penetrate the newspapers, at least. Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune) has this <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060112/1038956.asp" target="_blank">to say</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Unless you've been on the moon for a while, you probably have heard that Abramoff is a formerly well-connected Republican who has pleaded guilty to federal charges tied to his lobbying operations. Right-wing bloggers and others pounced on Dean and flailed away, since a number of Democratic senators and congressmen already have given Abramoff-associated money to charity. How, then, could Dean say otherwise? But I checked it out and, guess what? Dean was right. Although both Democrats and Republicans did, in fact, receive money from Abramoff's clients, only Republicans received personal donations from Abramoff himself.</blockquote><br /><blockquote> If anything, the tribes are one of the true victims in the Abramoff saga. Investigators say Abramoff referred to his Indian clients with racist slurs in his e-mails and represented some tribes while also representing their rival tribes who were competing for the same casino turf - the mother of all conflicts of interest!</blockquote><br /><br /><hr><br /><br />Also, Billmon at the <a href="http://billmon.org/" target="_blank">Whiskey Bar</a> has some neat <a href="http://billmon.org/archives/002351.html" target="_blank">quips and excerpts</a> from the pre-scandal days. It looks a little bit like a Lexis-Nexis search for anything with "Abramoff", but there are some nice quotes in there.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1137055351344963692006-01-12T00:35:00.000-08:002006-01-12T13:09:59.876-08:00Politics: Bush and SpyingLooking at folks debate the recent stuff about Bush's top-secret (at least in the vernacular sense) program to wiretap phone and data conversations of which US citizens may be a part... I notice it tends to get fractured into smaller, deeper debates about warrants in general or congress vs. the executive branch or whether simple suspicion of terrorism abrogates US citizenship, etc. <br /><br />So to summarize the important facets about the current scandal:<br /><ol><br /><li>Having a spy progam targeting... </li><br /><li>US Citizens...</li><br /><li>Without a warrant or court order...</li><br /><li>Where existing law passed by congress prohibits doing so...</li><br /><li>(Bonus) When a perfectly legal, fast, reliable way to do it with warrants exists (FISA)...</li><br /><li>(Bonus) And Saying it's within your powers to utterly ignore US law becuase of "war powers" in a conflict which is technically not a war and is almost by definition unwinnable. (War on Terror. Terror's pretty hard to kill.)</li><br /></ol><br />There've been folks on the right saying "But Clinton/Carter did exactly the same thing"... as far as I know at least one of those 1-4 major points does not come into play in their examples, making it a flawed comparison. And all of the polls being conducted seem to leave something important out, asking questions which don't reflect the controversy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1136853006512540132006-01-09T16:28:00.000-08:002006-01-09T16:31:42.420-08:00I bow to the superior wisdom of Dr. SnedleyExcept courtesy of Dr. Snedley (associate of Dr. Biobrain), as he delivers a <a href="http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2006/01/ny-times-traitorism-explained.html" target="_blank">devastating indictment of liberal talking points</a>:<br /><blockquote>Come off it, Glenn (if that is your real name). The terrorists we're dealing with are as cunningly brilliant and mind-bogglingly stupid as we need them to be at any given moment. That's exactly what makes them so damn dangerous and why Bush needs the illegal powers he's grabbed to protect us. They’re cowering in caves at one minute, and scouring CNN and internet message-boards for pro-terror encouragement the next. <br />[...]<br />Sure, these FISA courts of yours could provide the exact same protection that Bush has claimed his less-than-legal options have garnered; but what kind of message does that send the terrorists? When their chief opponent isn't even willing to break a few laws to defeat them? These people blow up buildings for entertainment; and our President can't even violate a lousy statute or two? They're laughing at us already. And if the terrorists are laughing, the terrorists have already won.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1136570570871841052006-01-06T09:40:00.000-08:002006-01-09T18:07:18.930-08:00Politics: Why the Abramoff scandal is RepublicanThere've been a lot of things recently in the news and right-wing blog sites that claim Democrats are equally culpable, but here I'd like to try to debunk this spin and explain why--at least for now--the Abramoff scandal is predominantly about Republicans. I'll try to be even-handed, but I'm not going to delude myself that I don't have a strong bias. <br /><br />Abramoff <strike>is</strike> was a lobbyist for several native American tribes. He has pled guilty to several distinct charges, the current popular charge being bribery of public officials.<br /><br />Here's the right-wing spin: "Democrats also recieved money from Abramoff <i>and his associates</i>". The "and associates" part is what makes the statement deliberately misleading, but also keeps it from being a flat-out lie. First, Abramoff himself donated (possibly bribed) exclusively to Republicans, according to federal records. Secondly, no Democrats are (currently?) under scrutiny for being wine-and-dined by Abramoff, or given all-expense-paid vacations, etc., like some of their Republican counterparts.<br /><br />So who are these "associates" of Abramoff who have given to Democrats? The native American tribes. But this is irrelevant. Guess what else Abramoff pled guilty to? He pled guilty for <b>defrauding his clients, the tribes, out of millions</b>. Republican apologists would have you believe that the tribes donated to Democrats based on Abramoff's recommendations, but let's be realistic: I'm certain (but am unable to name names) that the tribes employ multiple lobbyists, at least some of which are conduits to Democrats, and not all of which are corrupt.<br /><br />During Abramoff's employment, the tribes began to donate more to Republicans and less to Democrats (they've probably been legally donating to both parties for decades.) The reasonable explanation is that he was one of many lobbyists giving recommendations, and records which might show up will probably show that he exerted a big pull on the tribes to shift as much presumably-legal funding to Republican candidates as possible--balanced by the fact that his employers (like many industries and interests) weren't about to put all their legal-donation eggs in one basket. <br /><br />The tribes had the final say in their donation destinations. I doubt Jack Abramoff would attempt to direct any sort of funding towards democratic candidates--he once said: "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently." <br /><br />So here's the summary. Abramoff's employers have indeed donated to Democrats, and have for quite some time, but they are not charged with wrongdoing, and are indeed victims of Abramoff, who defrauded them of millions. Abramoff himself has either legitimately donated or illegally bribed <b>only Republicans</b>, and it is highly unlikely that he would try to get illegally cozy with Democrats. Therefore, to claim that Democrats are equally culpable--given what we currently know--is dishonest.<br /><br />Now, we'll find out more as documents are released, folks are indicted, and guilty pleas unfold. I would not be surprised to find at least one Democrat snared in the legal net, but I want to emphasize that the current frenzy on the Right is misleading and proceeds from dubious assumptions.<br /><br />P.S.: Fact checking on this post is welcome.<br /><br /><h2>Update 1:</h2><br />Similar rebuttal by Howard Dean. I'd have been a little more explicit about how Abramoff stole millions from "his associates", but oh well. Transcript availible at <a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113675532288836327">Atrios'</a> and movie at <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/08.html#a6627">Crooks and Liars</a>.<br /><br /><h2>Update 2:</h2><br />Ah, it seems Ian has <a href="http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/08/deanlateedition/" target="_blank">picked up</a> Dean's little clip too. I disagree, for the reasons already detailed in this post. Also, why would Ian want to disseminate (disperse, repeat) what Dean says? I'm guessing he meant "debunk". But then again, I may just be the pot calling the kettle "back".<br /><br /><h2>Update 3:</h2><br />[ Perhaps this is an excuse for testing the trackback functionality and getting some views from an established blog? Wait! Too much self-introspection! Abort, Abort! ]<br /><br />Found <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113657318189599509" target="_blank">this post</a> on <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Firedoglake</a>:<br /><blockquote> Let's get something straight up front: Native American groups have the same right as anyone else in this country to donate money to political campaigns that they feel represent their interests. That goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.<br /></blockquote><br />These tribes are where the big money (and money towards Democrats) in Abramoff's "and associates" comes from. As a side note, I still feel our current system of campaign funding, while legal, is too open to bribery--it just switches the order around. Instead of paying to help someone win, and then getting preferential treatment from them (bad), you realize you'll benefit from their election and pay to help them win (normal, legal). Self-interest isn't the problem, but there's too much wealth determining the outcome for my hazy, idealistic, and untested perfect world daydreams.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1136515814399887892006-01-05T18:09:00.000-08:002006-01-05T19:08:21.346-08:00Politics: The Political Teen needs to grow upYes, the inevitable rant-post. You knew this was coming. Anyway, I want to vent some bile at Ian Schwartz over at <a href="http://thepoliticalteen.net">The Political Teen</a>. While Ian does a good job collecting and posting up clips from the news, it's essentially another right-wing blog to pass on official spin. That alone isn't so bad.<br /><br />No, what irks me is Ian's cowardice. Instead of responding to an argument, he prefers to ban people or delete their posts. While this is within his technical rights, it contravenes his <a href="http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/17/commentpolicy/">stated comment policy</a>, because he deletes posts which are civil and topical. (In other words, a few of mine.)<br /><br />If Ian ever wants to have a real discussion, I'd be happy to have one somewhere where he can't cover for making a fool of himself with administrative power... Bloopers like claiming that the phrase is <a href="http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/29/odubconservatives/">"Pot calling the kettle <b>b</b>ack"</a> or dishonestly implying that the botched attempt to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora in 2001 was <a href="http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/28/jawbreaker/">"A Clinton Operation"</a>. (In both my posts have since been silently removed.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20588025.post-1136494048302283182006-01-05T12:46:00.000-08:002006-01-05T12:47:28.310-08:00Oh god, a blog! Noooooo!Well, I've finally succumbed. After thinking myself too humble for a blog, I've gotten one. While I still detest the phrase "blogosphere", my burgeoning hubris leads me onwards, to shamelessly expound on my slightest whim to a wider internet which will probably never read it.<br /><br />Oh well.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0