I read blogs, as well as write one. The 'blogroll' on this site reproduces some posts from some of the people I enjoy reading.

Disclaimer: Reproducing an article here need not necessarily imply agreement or endorsement!

This BBC gender pay row makes them all appear more than a touch dim

Adam Smith Institute - 4 hours 16 min ago

We're watching this row at the BBC over the gender pay gap with more than just a touch of amusement. For the correct, in our minds, lesson to take from this is that most of those complaining are more than just a little dim.

Please note that we're not saying that the pay structure itself is correct, nor that that of society itself is. Those are value judgments and we'll not impose ours on you nor the real world. But the shock and horror being expressed is most odd, for the gaps being presented are little different from those across society. Indeed, the BBC seems to be doing its job of being as society, reflecting society, rather well:

Women working at the BBC have spoken of the anger and frustration that has emerged across all levels of the institution after the disparity in pay between the male and female top earners was revealed.

What is the gender pay gap does depend rather upon how one measures it. But the figure that varied feminists often use is the mean gap, uncorrected for anything like age or qualifications. They have also been told (Harriet Harman specifically in fact) not to use this as it is highly misleading.

Why so? Because if you have a distribution where the bottom anchor is zero but there is no obvious upper limit then the mean will over state the reality, the median is a better figure to use. So says that Statistics Authority.

But why is that mean misleading about the gender pay gap? Because in near all pay distributions there are many fewer women in that upper stratosphere than there are men. Yes, we do know why, motherhood, primary child carers, career breaks and so on, just do mean that the average experience of womens' working life leads to less grasping of that brass ring of a very high income. Again ,we do not say this should be so but we do insist that it is so.

It is also well known that this is so. There just always are fewer women in the upper reaches of any pay distribution, we know this so well that we've official warnings not to use misleading statistics about it all. 

At which point the amusement. The BBC is that institution which is supposed to explain this complex and difficult world to us all. Yet here we have all this shock and horror over something that is indeed known, just not by those doing the shock and horror.

Hmm, perhaps dim isn't le mot juste, ignorant of what they speak perhaps?

Categories: Current Affairs

Good to see someone getting the point of Brexit

Adam Smith Institute - 4 hours 32 min ago

It's not that we approve, heaven forfend, of this particular policy idea but we do insist that this is the point behind Brexit

All of which is significant. Corbyn and McDonnell are smart enough to understand the risks of Brexit, but they also see it as an opportunity to push through their own economic agenda. Which is why they are exploring the freedom Brexit would provide for public ownership, lower rates of VAT to help those on the lowest incomes, state aid to support sunrise industries, and fair trade agreements with developing countries.

Remainers on the left would argue that there is no need to leave the EU for this to happen, but they are wrong about that for two reasons. The first is that a radical socialist programme that included a different approach to state aid, state ownership, public procurement and managed trade would be deemed illegal under European law. The second is that without Brexit, the impetus for change would quickly dissipate.

No, we really don't think that a more socialist economy is the way Britain should be moving - but you knew that, right? The underlying idea is entirely correct though. Membership of the European Union cuts us off from the possibility of a number of useful and interesting economic policies. 

We would like to see, for example, unilateral free trade. That's not something which EU membership allows. Not with that great big wide world out there that is. This is a policy different in kind from that socialism above of course - it has actually been tried and it worked, unlike socialism anywhen anywhere. We ourselves did it in 1846, that free trade thing, and we prospered mightily as a result.

Brexit allows us policy freedom which EU membership doesn't. Yes, that includes damn fool things like socialism but we are indeed all adults aren't we, capable of making up our own minds rather than having to rely upon Brussels to do it for us?

Categories: Current Affairs

Week in Review: July 22, 2017

Mises Institute - 7 hours 33 min ago
By: Mises Institute
Week in Review.png

Healthcare once again dominated the headlines as Republicans continue to struggle in their efforts to replace Obamacare. Of course, as Ryan McMaken noted this week, that’s part of the Republicans' problem. The obsessions of Obamacare itself has prevented honest conversation about what was plaguing American healthcare prior to the “Affordable” Care Act becoming law. Instead of eliminating government intervention in the healthcare industry, the GOP simply wants their own intervention. The issues ailing American healthcare does not mean that socialized medicine is the answer. As George Pickering pointed out, the UK's National Health Service looks great only if you ignore minor details. Like mortality rates. 

Instead, what is really needed is the elimination of the entire framework of the current highly regulated, subsidized, and manipulated healthcare market, and return to a free market where there is no room for government to get in the way of patient and doctor. 

On Mises Weekends, Jeff is joined by Brion McClanahan and Allen Mendenhall to discuss the US Constitution.

Lysander Spooner called it "The Constitution of no authority." Conservatives fetishize it, but don't follow it. Progressives want it annulled. So what should libertarians think about America's founding document?

Brion and Allen give us the unadulterated history and unpleasant truths about constitutionalism-- but also consider its underappreciated benefits. This is a discussion of the Constitution you won't hear anywhere else.

Below you'll find all the week's articles, in case you missed any of them:

Categories: Current Affairs

The Never-Ending Woes of a Government "Enterprise"

Mises Institute - 7 hours 33 min ago
By: Gregory Bresiger

History is something one can try to escape, but sometimes you can’t as millions of train riders find out every day.

They can’t escape Penn Station falling apart along with Amtrak, New York City commuter railroads, and the New York City subways. They all have the same problem: Every day they are reminded of the sordid history of government enterprise with derailments, delays and the billions of dollars of red ink of these dysfunctional systems. The bill is handed to the taxpayers whether they ride these trains or not.

As the New York City subways, Amtrak, and other government enterprises continue to fail, mainstream media and our political class have consistently missed how we reached this point of rail disasters as the norm. That’s because few of them have time for history. The management of Amtrak, New York Subways is actually a story of generations of the limitless failures of government. Indeed, most of the analyses and criticisms of government ownership and management of the subways are hopeless.

Among the lost are the Goo-Goo groups of the 1930s  — who called for public subway ownership — and their scions, the Straphangers Campaign of today.  And then there's the allegedly laissez-faire Manhattan Institute. All reject the privatization discussion. That’s because they work from a proposition that Albany and Washington, owing to their ability to tax and spend, are omnipotent and should continue to run transit systems; that they are part the solution. History proves the opposite.

The City to the Rescue?

Today, there is an assumption that no degree of private management can be allowed on the rails because they will always fail.

Yet it was private management that was there at the beginning. Private railroads helped build the economy of the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. And it was private management that was essential when the first subways were built.

Private management companies built the first lines in 1904 under a contract with the city. They were considered “an engineering marvel,” wrote Robert Caro in The Power Brokerhis biography of the New York uber-builder and power broker Robert Moses. And the subways made money in their first 15 years of operation until the inflation of World War I squeezed the nickel fare. Repeated attempts to raise the fare in the 1920s and 1930 were rejected by politicians as the actions of “greedy” owners. However, soon after the city took control of the subways in 1940, ousting the last private companies, fares went up and up.

But the ousting of the private management companies and the triumph of government enterprise supposedly heralded a new brighter period in subways. The sacred nickel fare would be protected. Labor unions would be happy and wouldn’t strike. (They would illegally strike several times and cripple the city’s economy). New lines would be built because, in 1940, the avaricious private management companies had been shown the door.

Back then Mayor LaGuardia drove the first city train after the last private management company was bought out. He also promised a Second Avenue subway line as the city’s East Side el lines were ended. It took three bond issues over more than half a century even to get just a few stops of the Second Avenue going. New York Governor Cuomo, in recently opening the stations, bragged about the accomplishments of the system. However, he said nothing about the reverse signaling system the subways desperately need but haven’t been able to afford over decades. Yet what happened in 1940 had a significance that has redounded throughout the American economy. Governments increasingly moved into areas that no one could have imagined generations ago.

The Broken Promises of Forgotten Leaders

Let us review where this all started — the supposed golden era of the New York City subways that started just before World War II

The subway promises of 1940 were a joke in every way — from the fare to the quality of service to the promises of line extensions (Example: what happened to the 1960s plan to extend the E and F lines to the Queens/Nassau border? It never happened. This one of a number of trains to “nowhere,” new branches that were started and never finished). Under city mismanagement, the subways became a mess. The city yielded control over the subways in 1968 to a state authority.

Now, after almost 50 years of Albany controls, after countless bond issues and deficits in a system that is an effective monopoly, the system, by all accounts, is a disaster. Many New Yorkers, in numerous ways, have no confidence in this state subway system, with millions of New Yorkers driving cars even though it is incredibly expensive to run a car here (My old neighborhood in the South Bronx, a poor area, has a huge parking problem).

The state authority running the subways, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), is in debt and hasn’t been able to maintain the system properly for decades, a fact mainstream New York media only seems to have discovered lately. Vital repairs and improvements can’t be made because the subway system has no money since it consistently loses tons of money. Yet the MTA spends billions of dollars recklessly and has its headquarters in the most expensive part of town, located on Madison Avenue in Midtown.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who rarely rides the subways, now offers to solve their problems. The mayor says the city should take over the subways from a state authority. Apparently, he has forgotten that the city under LaGuardia once owned the subways. Few pols are willing to learn from history.

An Enlightened Critic Ignored

One journalist understood what was happening when private companies were forced out of the subways.

“The City of New York has set a pattern for the nationalizing of the railroads of the country.” Libertarian journalist Frank Chodorov, in reviewing the events of 1940, said that, “A regulatory body, with power to fix rates and compel unprofitable operation, squeezes the business into bankruptcy, so that the owners are quite willing to sell their property to the taxpayers, and bureaucracy improves its position.”

Chodorov’s analysis was prescient. He would be proven right in the 1970s under President Richard Nixon as the government took over the passenger railroads (This is the same Nixon who imposed wage and price controls, kept interest rates artificially low so he could win re-election, proclaimed himself a Keynesian and led the nation into a decade of stagflation). In the 1970s this was a group of passenger railroads that were pushed into bankruptcy by the over-regulation of the ICC as detailed in the book No Way to Run a Railroad: The Untold Story of the Penn Central Crisis by Stephen Salisbury.

Nixon’s kind of backdoor socialism is one that had been under discussion by American social democrats for over a century. Their goal was, and is, how does one repackage socialism to the average American, a person who usually is repelled by the idea.

The backdoor socialism dream of progressives to take over transportation companies through over-regulation goes back to Herbert Croly and William Jennings Bryan, who favored nationalization of the railroads after visiting Czarist Russia. Wrote Croly in The Promise of American Life in 1909, when the idea of government railroads and transit systems seemed ridiculous, “the railroads might submit to the operation of some gradual system of appropriation, which would operate only in the course of several generations, and the money for which could be obtained by the taxation of railroad earnings.”

By 1971, Americans got a national passenger railroad system called Amtrak. Amtrak officials, at the founding, then promised “the greatest turnaround in business history,” as detailed in the book End of the Line by Joseph Vranich. That hasn’t happened as anyone who uses Penn Station these days will tell you. Amtrak ran in the red from day one (Amtrak lost at least $13 billion between 1972 and 1997, according to author Stephen Moore). In fact, all the lines using Penn Station, including New Jersey Transit, the Long Island Railroad and the city subways, are deep in the red.

Feeding the State Enterprise Beast

You don’t solve the problem of government enterprise by giving the entity — whether it be the New York City Subways or Amtrak—more money and more power. For instance, Senator Chuck Schumer proposes that Amtrak now be given trillions of dollars in new funding. The governor calls for an emergency appropriation of a billion dollars. Many city officials propose the same for the subways. But this has been tried before. Often bond issues were once routinely approved by trusting New York voters. Proposed emergency plans, all providing for more taxpayer geld and new forms of state or city authorities, abound.

Writes one historian of the subway system: “If anything has emerged as a timeless and universal characterization of the New York Subway, it is the endless search for some future salvation, some not yet realized resolution of it difficulties and cure for its ills. Plans are made, programs developed, goals established. But they never quite live up to their initial expectations, and a new cycle must begin.”

The writer was Brian Cudahy, and yet he is a former federal transit official and longtime defender of this flawed system of public subways. He wrote that some 20 years ago.

 Collectivism and Coercion

Subway socialism, the government enterprise of Amtrak, not only is collectivism, which is inherently flawed, it is undemocratic. No elected official is directly in charge of these enterprises. The New York governor, for instance, appoints some but not all members of the state authority that runs the subways. That is the way our lawmakers duck responsibility for the woes of the government trains.

Most of the lawmakers haven’t a clue about what is going on at the MTA or on Amtrak. And that is the way they want it. They wanted transportation companies to stay in the public sector, but they don’t want to be held accountable when Amtrak trains crash, the subways break down or when high speed train service is egregious.

This collectivism combined lack of accountability in running state enterprises is dangerous.

“If anything has been demonstrated by modern experience in these matters,” F.A. Hayek wrote in 1960, “it is that, once wide coercive powers are given to government agencies for particular purposes, such powers cannot be effectively controlled by democratic assemblies.”

It is the same with the majority of mainstream media. It still favors continued government ownership of the subways and almost always rejects op-eds like this one (I write from experience).

Through the years it and most state and city lawmakers have failed in its job of policing these government authorities. Most media outlets don’t even go to MTA meetings and have no specialized reporters covering these transit authorities.

But again, this government ownership with no accountability idea is part of the long history of government enterprise. Alexander Gray, an economist who wrote the “The Socialist Tradition from Moses to Lenin” over 70 years ago, warned of the lack of accountability in the London Underground. “More and more,” he wrote, “the state interferes and controls, the less does it show a disposition to accept ultimate responsibility.”

Sounds similar to New York or Amtrak or almost any other government enterprise today.

Gregory Bresiger ( is an independent business journalist who lives in Kew Gardens, Queens, New York. He is the author of MoneySense, a forthcoming book of basic of money management with a libertarian point of view.

Categories: Current Affairs

Obama's AWOL Anti-War Protest

Mises Institute - 8 hours 3 min ago
By: James Bovard

Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 as a peace candidate. He signaled that he would fundamentally change America’s course after the reckless carnage unleashed by the George W. Bush administration. However, by the end of Obama’s presidency, the United States was bombing seven different foreign nations.

But Obama’s warring rarely evoked the protests or opposition that the Bush administration generated. Why did so many Bush-era anti-war activists abandon the cause after Obama took office?

One explanation is that the news media downplayed Obama’s killings abroad. Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize less than 12 days after taking office — not because of anything that he had achieved, but because of the sentiments he had expressed. Shortly after he accepted the Peace Prize, he announced that he would sharply increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Much of the media treated Obama’s surge as if it were simply a military campaign designed to ensure that the rights of Afghan women were respected. The fact that more than 2,000 American troops died in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch received far less attention in the press than did the casualties from Bush’s Iraq war.

In early 2011, popular uprisings in several Arab nations spurred a hope that democracy would soon flourish across North Africa and much of the Middle East. Violent protests in Libya soon threatened the long-term regime of dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had become a U.S. ally and supporter in recent years. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other advisors persuaded Obama to forcibly intervene in what appeared to be a civil war.

In March 2011, Obama told Americans that “the democratic values that we stand for would be overrun” if the United States did not join the French and British assault on the Libyan government. Obama declared that one goal of the U.S. attack was “the transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people.” Qaddafi, who was dealing with uprisings across the nation, sent Obama a personal message: “As you know too well, democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed members of al-Qaeda in Benghazi.”

Even before the United States began bombing Libya, there was no sober reason to expect that toppling Qaddafi would result in a triumph of popular sovereignty. Some of the rebel groups had been slaughtering civilians; black Africans whom Qaddafi had brought into Libya as guest workers were especially targeted to be massacred. Some of Qaddafi’s most dangerous opponents were groups that the United States had officially labeled as terrorists.

Obama decided that bringing democracy to Libya was more important than obeying U.S. law. The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 in the waning days of the Vietnam War, requires presidents to terminate military attacks abroad after 60 days unless Congress specifically approves the intervention. Immediately after the bombing commenced, Secretary of State Clinton declared during a classified briefing for members of Congress that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” Echoing the Bush administration the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be “an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.”

According to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Obama “had the constitutional authority” to attack Libya “because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.” Apparently, as long as presidential advisors concluded that attacking foreigners is in the U.S. “national interest,” the president’s warring passes muster — at least according to his lawyers. Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway lamented that “history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.”

The U.S. attack on Libya evoked almost no protests across the nation. After Qaddafi was killed, Secretary Clinton laughed during a television interview celebrating his demise: “We came, we saw, he died.” But U.S. missiles and bombs begat chaos, not freedom. Five years later, when asked what was the worst mistake of his presidency, Obama replied, “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.”


In 2013, Obama decided to attack the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Obama team alleged that the Assad regime had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.

A front-page Washington Post headline blared, “Proof Against Assad at Hand.” But that hand remained hidden. On a Sunday talk show, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough admitted that the administration lacked evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” proving that the Syrian regime had carried out the gas attack. But McDonough asserted, “The common-sense test says [Assad] is responsible for this. He should be held to account.” Obama administration officials also insisted that attacking Syria would boost American “credibility.” But unless “credibility” is defined solely as assuring the world that the president of the United States can kill foreigners on a whim, that is a poor bet. This type of credibility is more appropriate for a drunken brawl in a bar than for international relations.

The administration never provided solid evidence to back up its claim. Even Obama ally Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) characterized the evidence presented in a Capitol Hill classified briefing as “circumstantial.” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) commented, “The evidence is not as strong as the public statements that the president and the administration have been making. There are some things that are being embellished in the public statements. The [classified] briefings have actually made me more skeptical about the situation.”

Seeking to rally the nation behind the cause, Obama called on Congress to authorize bombing Syria. But the American people had little stomach for another adventure abroad. There were a few protests — including one outside the White House on the Saturday when Obama was expected to announce that he had commenced bombing. I was there that day, along with a smattering of conservative and libertarian opponents to another war. The protest was a bit anemic until a couple busloads of ANSWER Coalition activists arrived from Baltimore. They had great signs — “Bombing Syria Doesn’t Protect People — It Kills Them” —and they marched and chanted in unison better than most high-school bands. The U.S. Park Police were unhappy with the protest and rode their horses into the middle of the group. Federal officials came up and threatened to arrest anyone who did not clear away from the street behind the White House. A handful of arrests were made and the crowd simmered down.

But when Obama made his a radio speech to the nation that afternoon, the chanting from the protest could be heard in the background. Obama announced that he was postponing a decision on bombing.

However, in the summer of 2014, the ISIS terrorist group released videos of the beheading of hostages. That provided sufficient cover for Obama to commence bombing that group — and other targets in Syria. The media played its usual lapdog role. A Washington Post headline proclaimed, “Obama the reluctant warrior, cautiously selling a new fight.” So we’re supposed to think the president is a victim of cruel necessity, or what? A New York Times headline announced, “In Airstrikes, U.S. Targets Militant Cell Said to Plot an Attack Against the West.” “Said to” is the perfect term — perhaps sufficient to alert non-brain-dead readers that something may be missing (e.g., evidence). By mid 2016, the Obama administration had dropped almost 50,000 bombs on ISIS forces (or civilians wrongly suspected to be ISIS fighters) in Syria and Iraq. A September 2016 Daily Beast article noted, “In January, the Pentagon admitted to bombing civilians on at least 14 different occasions. In July, an off-target airstrike in northern Syria killed more than 60 people.”

Obama acted as if he was doing God’s work by again bombing the Middle East. But the supposed beneficiaries were not persuaded. On the eve of the 2016 U.S. November election, independent journalist Rania Khalek (who was visiting Syria) tweeted, “I’ve been asking Syrians who they want to win for president. The vast majority say Trump because they feel he’s less likely to bomb them.” Presidential rhetoric was not sufficient compensation for the lives and homes that would be destroyed by the increased onslaughts that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton seemed to promise.

Anti-War or Anti-Republican?

Thousands of innocent foreigners were killed by U.S. bombings and drone attacks during the Obama administration. In his 2016 State of the Union address, Obama scoffed at “calls to carpet bomb civilians.” Perhaps he considered it far more prudent to blow up wedding parties instead (as happened during his reign in Yemen and Afghanistan). As long as White House or Pentagon spokesmen announced that the United States was using “precision bombing,” media controversy over innocent victims was blunted, if not completely avoided.

Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush? Salon columnist David Sirota summarized an academic study released in 2013: “Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats ‘withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success’ in the 2008 presidential election.”

Sirota noted that the researchers concluded that “during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead ‘motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.’”

There have been plenty of stout critics of U.S. warring in recent years — including, The Future of Freedom Foundation, Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, and some principled liberals and leftists such as CounterPunch and Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept. But overall, the media spotlight rarely shone on U.S. carnage abroad, as it did in earlier times. Perhaps the anti-war movement will revive if Donald Trump commences bombing new foreign nations. But it is clear that too many Americans have not yet learned the folly of “kill foreigners first, ask questions later.”

Originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation. 

Categories: Current Affairs

Bruno guilty

Anglican Ink - 10 hours 1 min ago

Hearing Panel recommends 3 year suspension and restoration of congregation to the parish properties

Should Libertarians Care about the Constitution?

Mises Institute - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 23:30
By: Brion McClanahan, Allen Mendenhall, Jeff Deist
 Mises Weekends

Lysander Spooner called it "The Constitution of no authority." Conservatives fetishize it, but don't follow it. Progressives want it annulled. So, what should libertarians think about America's founding document?

Our guests Brion McClanahan and Allen Mendenhall give us the unadulterated history and unpleasant truths about constitutionalism—but also consider its underappreciated benefits.This is a discussion of the Constitution you won't hear anywhere else.

Categories: Current Affairs

Charges? We Don’t Need No Stinking Charges.

Blog & Mablog - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 18:52

So if I may, I would like to explain the basic problems with asset forfeiture in simple and straightforward terms. In their opposition to it, the editors at National Review said, “Asset forfeiture is a constitutionally questionable practice,” and while it was good to see them calling for Jeff Sessions to get a hold of himself, I would prefer to call it constitutionally damnable. The Attorney General just loosened some of the restrictions on the godless practice that the Obama administration had placed on it . . .

Excuse me. I have to go lie down for a bit.

Over the last decade, the government has seized 3 billion (with a b) worth of goods from people who were never charged with a crime. This can happen because the bulk of cases come from civil cases. That’s right. They can just take your stuff, never charge you, and never return it. Your stuff—the French always have an apt phrase—is les gone.

Just because the police like it, and just because it seems strict, and just because it cracks the heads of some drug kingpins, doesn’t make it good law. It is still vile. It is wicked, and the fact that some Republicans like it doesn’t alter that fact. It is a due process defenestration. If someone in law enforcement thinks that some money he saw in the trunk of your car may have been obtained illicitly (e.g. selling drugs), then he can just take it. His department can spend it.

So we are talking about perverse incentives here. For another example of “policing for profit,” say a municipality sets up traffic cameras in order to catch speeders and “it-was-not-quite-red-yet traffic light ignorers,” and as a consequence they start to get a nice little revenue stream from it. But now the purpose inexorably shifts from traffic safety to maintaining the revenue stream. So now your municipality needs you to speed in the same way that Baskins & Robbins needs you to want three scoops right about now.

Attorney General Sessions adjusted the asset forfeiture rules so that local police departments could get around state laws against asset forfeiture by sharing the loot with the Feds.

So there are three basic reasons to be appalled at this Institutional Larceny.

First, there is the Tenth Amendment to be concerned about. If a state has taken action to protect its citizens against ungodly asset forfeiture, the federal government has no business waltzing in to take that protection away.

Second, the big one, is that this practice insults the practice of, the idea of, and the memory of, due process. Even when a cop finds cash in the trunk of a car of an actual drug dealer, one guilty as sin, it is gross violation of due process to execute part of the sentence, perhaps the heaviest portion of the sentence, before a trial. If there is a trial. Trial? Sentencing before a trial, and sentencing without a trial, is the kind of thing that might fly in Sharkey’s Shire. But why here?

And third, we ought not to agree to live in a society where those charged with keeping order have built-in financial incentives to jigger with the scales of justice. Talk about a conflict of interest. Golly Ned. Sometimes it seems the War on Drugs has resulted in all our rulers taking them. Maybe they seized some of those assets too.

The post Charges? We Don’t Need No Stinking Charges. appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

An Interview with Bettina Bien Greaves

Mises Institute - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 15:30
By: Bettina Bien Greaves
Today is Bettina Bien Greaves 100th birthday. Mrs. Greaves is a truly special person, and without her the Mises Institute would not be what it is today.Along with her husband Percy, she attended Ludwig von Mises's seminars at New York University, where she earned the respect and trust of Mises. She went on to be a vital assistant to Mises for the rest of his life, as well as becoming an accomplished scholar in her own right. Ever since the Mises Institute's founding, Mrs. Greaves has been a remarkable supporter, contributor, and friend.Anyone who cares about the ideas of Austiran economics, freedom, and peace, owe her their sincerist gratitude.Below is an interview with Mrs. Greaves from 1998, discussing her time with Ludwig von Mises and the ideas the Mises Institute stands for. 

AEN: How did the most recent Mises book, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, come to be written and published?

GREAVES: This is a fascinating case. Mises came to the United States in 1940, and this must have been written soon after, but nothing ever came of it. This was a very sad and difficult period in his life. He had no money and no job. His books and papers, except for those he had taken to Switzerland, had been confiscated by the Nazis. He had few contacts in America. I marvel that he was able to be so productive.

I'm very pleased this book is out at last. It is a valuable contribution, and stands with Socialism (1922) and Liberalism (1927) as an important part of the comparative-systems literature.

In those first few months after arriving in the United States, Mises also wrote Notes and Recollections, a very moving book. I have to give Mrs. Mises the credit for Mises's productivity during this period. She shielded him from the world so he could get his writing done.

AEN: Your bibliography is also an invaluable contribution to Misesian scholarship.

GREAVES: It certainly was many years in the making. It began in the late 1950s, when I began attending Mises's New York University seminar. Then, one summer when the Miseses were going to Europe, his wife Margit gave me a key to their apartment so that I could catalog his books. I did that over the summer. Among the books and pamphlets were Mises's own writings. Also over the years when I was in Mises's seminar, he would hand me a copy of anything he wrote. I began accumulating things over time.

That eventually became the bibliography I presented to him on his eightieth birthday (1961). But as soon as it went to print, I was dissatisfied with it because I had found some omissions. I kept thinking I would get back to it, but it took the constant urging of my friend Robert McGee to force me to pick the project up again. He came over every week to help, and we worked faithfully for months. We both thought that a list of books would be rather dull. So we decided to annotate it. Well, this vastly expanded the project.

McGee became so busy in his work that he had to pull out, and I finished it up over the following year. It includes not only Mises's published works in all languages, but crucial passages from contemporary reviews of Mises's works, including reviews in German, French, and Spanish. I had help with the Italian, and the Czech I left only in titles, but the rest I did myself.

AEN: And you did the translations yourself?

GREAVES: Ill never forget Mises saying in his seminar, again and again, that languages are important. I took that to heart. It was still difficult for me and I did it very slowly. I had some French and German in school, and I studied Spanish after I got out of school in 1938, in anticipation of spending some time in Latin America. By the time the war came, I was working three jobs in Washington, D.C., two of which were secretarial. I wanted to do something more exciting and more lucrative. I went to the U.S. employment office to see what they had.

They asked me: would you like to work for the government? I said no. Then facetiously I said, "For one thing I dont like long corridors." They assured me there would be no long corridors in South America. Thirty days later I was in South America, working with a special commission investigating labor trouble at a Bolivian mine. For propaganda purposes, the commission included a member representing organized labor. Every morning, he would go around pulling clean towels down from racks to insure that the maids at the hotel would have work to do. The New Deal ethic of "make work" trickled all the way down to that level.

After completing its report, the special commission left Bolivia and I was transferred to the Board of Economic Warfare. For the war effort, the Board of Economic Warfare was buying tin, tungsten, and cinchona, for the treatment of malaria. I learned some Spanish in my two years in Bolivia, then returned to Washington. There I was assigned temporarily to the Board of Economic Warfare's Mexican Division, whose task was to approve licenses for trading with Mexico. There were four men and three girls in the office and practically no work. I spent my time doing my fingernails, cutting paper dolls, and making clothes for my young niece. But I did type up the office's request to Congress for the next year's funding to include six men and six girls. That taught me something about bureaucracy. Later I was transferred to Europe.

AEN: Did you make it to Austria?

GREAVES: Yes. After V-E Day, I was one of eight girls flown over the Alps to Austria. Working in Vienna gave me a chance to relearn German. But I had never heard of Austrian economics. I had one economics course at Wheaton College (Norton, Mass.), from which I concluded that the best kind of government would be an enlightened dictatorship. The only problem was that we could not be sure that later dictators would be equally enlightened. When the Board of Economic Warfare was disbanded, I switched to the War Department for a few months before returning home. When I left the War Department, I swore I would never work for the government again. And I did not.

I worked in bookkeeping after the war, and one day I applied for a position as an editorial assistant. I wrote that I was fed up with government red tape. Well, at the other end of that letter was Percy Greaves, who would later become my husband. He ran the Foundation for Freedom in Washington, D.C., but that organization did not do well. In 1951, I came to the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), where I met Ludwig von Mises, who was a part-time member of the staff.

A magazine called The Freeman, before FEE took it over, sponsored a Mises seminar. I attended that summer and took verbatim notes. Then that fall I started attending Mises's New York University seminar, where I also took notes. I didn't stop taking notes on his seminar until it finally closed in 1969. I also took some private German lessons, conducted entirely in German.

AEN: And you put your knowledge of German to work for Mises?

GREAVES: He was generally suspicious of translations. He doubted whether many translators could be familiar enough with the two languages on which they worked to produce something truly faithful to the original. Also, he often pointed out that customs, practices, and concepts associated with one language may have no counterpart in another. Even so, he sanctioned some translations. I was particularly careful with the translation of three monetary essays published as On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, edited by Percy. The two of us often spent hours, with dictionaries and thesaurus at hand, discussing the most suitable words to use. It took a lot of time, but I hope the result would have pleased Mises.

AEN: Was Human Action out by the time you met Mises?

GREAVES: Yes, and I read it in 1951. I remember standing on a street corner reading it, waiting to be picked up for Mises's seminar. I was captivated by it. Of course I didn't have an economics background, but in some ways that worked to my advantage. Mises's book went against the grain of what was being taught in economics classes and business schools. To understand his approach required first unlearning what was being taught elsewhere at the time. I didn't have much to unlearn, so, in some ways, picking up Austrian economics was easier for me than even for Percy, who had been in business school.

The laissez-faire politics of the book was no problem for me. I was raised by a father who was a strict constitutionalist. He believed in free trade and wasnt fond of government. He was opposed to the New Deal, though my grandmother was a New Dealer. He just agreed not to talk with her about it. My impression is that the Austrian explanation for the depression is more widely accepted today than in the past. Frederick Lewis Allens book Since Yesterday accepts that the cause and the problem of the depression rested with the credit system. And Paul Johnsons History of the American People adopts the Austrian explanation too.

AEN: In the early 1950s, did you imagine that Mises would be your lifetime project?

GREAVES: Oh, heavens no. I sort of got stuck with it. Percy was the real Misesian, and he kept pushing me to read and study and work with this project. You know, I'veheard it said that Percy worshiped Mises blindly, but that was not true. He was drawn to Mises because he realized that Mises had the answers and that others did not. I came to understand that too.

Not that Mises was surrounded by acolytes. There were three types of people who came to his New York University seminar. First, students who wanted an easy credit. Second, more serious people like Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, and Hans Sennholz, who were economists of the Austrian tradition. Then there were people like me, George Koether, Mary Sennholz, and many others. We came and just got hooked. Frequently, a person would hear one lecture and get hooked. I dont put myself in that category at all. I supported the free market, but it took me a while to fully appreciate Mises.

AEN: Mises's appeal, then, is both scholarly and popular.

GREAVES: Certainly, and I think this is one reason he has had such an impact. A good example of his popular style can be seen in Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. In 1959, he was to deliver some lectures in Argentina. He came with a clear message. Government should protect and defend the lives and property of the persons under its jurisdiction, settle disputes that arise, and otherwise leave people free to pursue their various goals and ends in life.

This idea was radical then and it still is today. Governments still presume to regulate and control economic life. They manipulate prices, fix wages, subsidize business, hamper imports or exports, manage the money supply, care for the sick and elderly, bail out the profligate, and on and on. But these efforts are contrary to freedom and contrary to capitalism, and they produce undesirable consequences for society in the long run. They impede the ability of people to cooperate in their own material betterment.

In these lectures, he expressed this idea with great clarity and force. He always said it was as important to convince businessmen and average people of the case for the market economy as it was to convince scholars and intellectuals. What determines whether or not we have a free economy is the ideas people hold about economics. Mises did everything he could to popularize the message.

AEN: Was there a difference between the private Mises and the public Mises?

GREAVES: In public and private, he was always a very quiet and unassuming person, but also he was positive and determined. As many people have said, he wouldnt compromise. When he lectured, he did not have the style that is popularly associated with genius: wild eyed, arms waving, demagogic. That was not Mises at all. He was conventional and traditional in his appearance. His manners were perfect. He didn't talk about what he was doing or thinking. But in a seminar setting, he could be extremely quick witted. He was once asked about the proposal for making "paper gold," i.e., Special Drawing Rights, the international currency. He responded that the proponents of "paper gold" should consult the alchemists.

AEN: Many people have said he was a man of the Old World.

GREAVES: Remember that his full name was "Ludwig Edler von Mises." "Edler von" indicates the particular rank of nobility he had under the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Before 1919, his books and writings were signed "Ludwig von Mises." After World War I, all Austrian titles of nobility were abolished by law. As a result, his writings in the interwar period were signed "Ludwig Mises." After he left Vienna, he added the "von" back in. In America, he dropped the "von" in his private life, but continued to use it in his writings, so that bibliographers would know he was the same man.

It was a smart choice, because he was so prolific. In Vienna, when Mises had a full-time job with the Chamber of Commerce, writing reports and articles on all sorts of economic topics, he was also teaching one evening a week and holding his famous private seminar one evening a week. Hayek says that in 1922, he was dumbfounded to see this huge book called Socialism come out. He didn't know Mises was even writing it and didn't know when he would have had time.

AEN: Fritz Machlup seems to have worked hard to get Mises a position in those early years.

GREAVES: They were very good friends. Machlup was a businessman, he also came to Mises's private seminar in Vienna and received his PhD at the University of Vienna. When Mises was thinking of migrating to the United States, he couldn't get permission without first having a job offer. It was Machlup, and I think Gottfried Haberler, who made arrangements with the provost of a university in California. Mises accepted. It was only after Mises arrived in New York that he was told that there was no job; it was only a ruse to get him to the United States.

Henry Hazlitt, who was working for the New York Times, also tried to get Mises an academic position. He held a dinner party with some people from the New School for Social Research. But they found him far too extreme to hire. When he finally got an invitation to speak in Mexico, and the visas were arranged, it was a tremendous boost to his morale. Later, he was able to get a visiting professor position with New York University, and a foundation called the Volcker Fund paid NYU for the costs of his seminar.

One point on Machlup. He was taken in, at least to some extent, by Keynesian economics. Many years later, Machlup made a speech at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting on money and credit. Mises stood up and left the room. He told Margit, "Machlup knows better than that." Later, Margit got Mises and Machlup back together again.

AEN: It's been said that relations between Leonard Read and Mises were sometimes tense.

GREAVES: FEE was Reads foundation, and he wanted to be the big I Am. And he was. Mises had his bailiwick, in which he felt he deserved recognition as the authority. Read realized that and respected it. Read invited Mises to lecture at FEE regularly, but they kept their jurisdictions separate, as they should have. Read didn't understand Mises, but he knew he was an important person.

Read was also jealous of Percy for the same reason. Percy sometimes went on the road for seminars with Read. After a talk, the audience was split into three groups, and each speaker would take a third of the audience and field questions. Read couldn't field the questions sparked by Percy's talks. He didn't want to talk about money. He would shift the discussion to whether or not the seminar should include a talk on money. I think the problem was in the discussion group format.

AEN: What role did Hazlitt play as Mises's editor?

GREAVES: Mises got a grant to have an office at the National Bureau for Economic Research, and thats where he wrote both Bureaucracy and Omnipotent Government. Hazlitt helped considerably with them, editing and getting them published by Yale University Press. Then Hazlitt encouraged Yale to ask Mises to redo in English his German-language National?konomie. When Human Action was in manuscript form he went over it and marked it up, trying to smooth out the English. Later when reading over the published edition, Hazlitt occasionally came across some awkwardly phrased passages. Whether Mises rejected Hazlitts suggestions, I just dont know. In general, Mises's English was very good, but it was formal, not colloquial English.

Thirteen years later, Mises wanted to make some changes in the sections on monopoly and on government, partly in response to discussions he had with Murray Rothbard. Yale said they would do this by pasting in the new material with the old manuscript. Mises said he wanted to see proofs before printing, but Yale said not to worry.

When the new edition came out, Mises was sick about it. His lifetime work had been mangled. They omitted one page, printed one page twice, and did the same thing with a couple of paragraphs. They had dark type and light type, short pages and long pages. It was a lousy print job that Yale should have been ashamed of. Mises wanted to sue, but his lawyer said they had no chance of winning a case against Yale in Connecticut. At first Yale didn't want to relinquish reprint permission, but finally in 1966, the entire manuscript was reset and published by Henry Regnery. That was the version that was sold for many years. Two years ago, FEE was pleased to issue a newer edition with some corrected typos and a new and expanded index.

AEN: Mises was often thought to be behind the times.

GREAVES: And now we know that he was way ahead of his times. He was celebrating the wonderful inventiveness and productive power of markets while everyone else was talking about the wonders of central planning and socialism. Today, markets are becoming the driving force of history and governments are shrinking in their ambitions.

AEN: What do you think about claims that the business cycle has been abolished?

GREAVES: I'veheard this many times in the past. And I often get asked about parallels between the 1920s and today. Today, just as in the 1920s, people think the prosperity will last forever. Thats what they also thought in Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea only two years ago. Theres no question that todays soft credit expansion has distorted production patterns, but in what way and to what extent we cannot know for sure.

Of course there's been continual credit expansion since the creation of the Fed, with only a few interludes. Every step away from the gold standard has freed up the central bank to expand the money supply through the credit system, until we arrive at where we are today: no limits on what the Fed can do. The effects of inflation have been forestalled because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, hoarded overseas and held by individuals and every central bank. It's hard to say where the present boom will lead, but I noted something Mises said in one of his lectures that I was transcribing the other day. He said that the capitalist system is so productive and adaptive that it conceals the ill-effects of credit expansion for a very long time. But there is a limit.

AEN: What do you suppose will be the response by the Fed in the next recession?

GREAVES: It's hard to say, but the history of bank failure doesnt suggest that banking authorities will do the right thing. Every time there were bank failures in the nineteenth century, people would blame the lack of centralization. That's how we eventually got a Federal Reserve. It was attempting to provide the banking industry with more liquidity so that it could ride out bank crises.

Now, we have internationalized bank failures and even whole governments that are propped up by the IMF, working with the Fed and the Treasury. In each case, the dollar is serving as the foundation for these escalating bailouts of foreign governments and banking systems. That would imply that the next crises might lead to a push for a world central bank, which would only extend the present problem.

Keynesians want to restrict the ability of nations to exercise sovereignty over their own central banking policies; they want all countries to inflate at the same rate. That's difficult to do when countries are trying to run their own affairs, and especially when every country seems to think that the way to keep prosperity going forever is to keep expanding the money supply.

In the last series of Mises's lectures that I typed, he was speaking about the continual easing of money. He pointed out that when the quantity of money and credit is being increased, monetary authorities must decide who will get the new money first. Those who do are content; those who dont are resentful. In any event, every such case of selective expansion must lead to economic distortion. We have seen the total collapse of some Asiatic economies when things got out of kilter. The monetary authorities dont seem to have a clue as to how to manage the situation.

AEN: Percy had a strong interest in the question of Pearl Harbor, and then you picked up his project.

GREAVES: I'm working on finishing his manuscript. Percy served as chief of the minority staff on the Congressional committee that investigated Pearl Harbor. The book is called The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, and it will probably be about 1,000 pages. I think it will be an important contribution. We have documentation that Roosevelt was not willing to wait for United States territory to be attacked. He intended on December 8 to have the United States enter the war to defend "our national interests" in Southeast Asia when British and Thai territories were attacked in that region by the Japanese. Thus the attack on Pearl Harbor became the excuse, but it was not the reason for our entering the war.

The first substantial postwar book on Pearl Harbor appeared in 1947, by George Morgenstern. There have been many since. Most historians agree that Roosevelt wanted the United States to get into the war, but it is not well-known that he had that intention even before the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor. Our book covers all the eight or nine investigations that sought to determine why we were surprised by the Japanese attack and who was responsible for the extent of the damage. My job is to update his work, considering all the modern scholarship on the subject, and provide as many details about the case and the investigations as possible, so the reader can make up his own mind.

The administration's investigations were rigged, and ended up holding the Hawaiian commanders, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short, responsible. The truth started to come out in 1944, when news leaked that the United States had broken the Japanese diplomatic code long before the attack and had been intercepting Japanese messages. But the revelations derived from the prewar intercepts were not delivered to the Hawaiian commanders. Roosevelt died in April 1945, before V-E Day. Only in August 1945, after V-J Day, were the reports from the Army and Navy released--by the new president, Harry Truman. These reports pretty much absolved Kimmel and Short of blame and placed the responsibility on the administration. That's when Congress got involved. Our book reviews all the investigations and considers all the evidence about the cover-ups. As you can see, government cover-ups and plots against the truth are nothing new.

AEN: Will this book affect how we think of Roosevelt?

GREAVES: I don't say this in the book, but I think it demonstrates that Roosevelt was cagey, sneaky, and scheming. That comes through in how he was trying to maneuver us into war. Clare Booth Luce said it in the 1944 campaign: he lied us into the war. I have a chapter in which I discuss what Roosevelt knew and when he knew it. He is not on record anywhere on the subject. There are many notes that say so and so met in the White House and discussed such and such with Roosevelt. But he didn't put things in writing. Incidentally, Admiral Kimmel's son read the first volume of this book, before he died not long ago, and said that was the best treatment of prewar events in Washington that he had seen.

AEN: Do you think we could have avoided the war?

GREAVES: Charles Lindbergh thought so. He said it wasnt our war and we should stay out. I tend to agree. I dont know what would have happened to England in the short run. And I dont know what would have become of Russia in the absence of our assistance.

But as Mises says in Interventionism, Hitler's programs would not have worked over the long run. He was trying to run a planned economy, and it would have failed just as surely as other socialist programs have failed. But today, people think Roosevelt saved the world, not only militarily but also economically, through inflation.

Incidentally, I highly recommend R.J. Rummel's book Death by Government. It is absolutely unbelievable what governments have done to people, ofttimes their own people. There are important lessons here to be learned!

It's true that the attitude of people toward government has shifted. Many find government corrupt and expensive and doubt its effectiveness. At the same time, people still do not trust free markets and open competition. The ideas of Marx and Keynes linger on in the popular mind and still haunt legislation.

AEN: And to explain the workings of economic liberty is a driving force behind your work.

GREAVES: Yes it is. I loved working on Mises's bibliography. At times I found it fascinating; at other times I wondered who would ever be interested in all the minutia I was digging up. I enjoy talking about him and discussing his career. But as interesting as the details of his life are, his ideas and economic theories are more important. Promoting them will be the most fitting tribute possible to Mises.

Originally published in the Austrian Economics Newsletter (Volume 18, Number 4 | Winter 1998)

Bettina Bien Greaves attended Ludwig von Mises's New York University seminar, compiled Mises: An Annotated Bibliography, the major parts of which are now available on here, and also edited several collections of articles. She is a senior Mises Scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and was interviewed in her office at the Foundation for Economic Education


Categories: Current Affairs

Beta: HardenedPHP for EasyApache 4 updated

CloudLinux - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 13:36

The new updated HardenedPHP packages are available for download from our updates-testing repository.





  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring.


  • CVE-2017-11143: wddx parsing empty boolean tag leads to SIGSEGV;
  • CVE-2017-11144: negative-size-param (-1) in memcpy in zif_openssl_seal();
  • CVE-2017-11145: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date();
  • CVE-2017-11146: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date() (caused by CVE-2017-11145);
  • CVE-2017-7890: Buffer over-read into uninitialized memory;
  • CVE-2017-9224: Buffer Overflow in match_at() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9226: Heap corruption in next_state_val() in 15 encodings (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9227: Bug in mbc_enc_len() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9228: Heap corruption in next_state_val() due to uninitialized local variable (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9229: SIGSEGV in left_adjust_char_head() due to bad dereference (Oniguruma issue);
  • bug74087: Segmentation fault in PHP7.1.1(compiled using the bundled PCRE library);
  • bug74603: PHP INI Parsing Stack Buffer Overflow Vulnerability;
  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring;
  • updated Litespeed SAPI to 6.11.


  • CVE-2017-11143: wddx parsing empty boolean tag leads to SIGSEGV;
  • CVE-2017-11144: negative-size-param (-1) in memcpy in zif_openssl_seal();
  • CVE-2017-11145: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date();
  • CVE-2017-11146: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date() (caused by CVE-2017-11145);
  • CVE-2017-7890: Buffer over-read into uninitialized memory;
  • CVE-2017-9224: Buffer Overflow in match_at() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9226: Heap corruption in next_state_val() in 15 encodings (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9227: Bug in mbc_enc_len() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9228: Heap corruption in next_state_val() due to uninitialized local variable (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9229: SIGSEGV in left_adjust_char_head() due to bad dereference (Oniguruma issue);
  • bug70436: Use After Free Vulnerability in unserialize();
  • bug74087: Segmentation fault in PHP7.1.1(compiled using the bundled PCRE library);
  • bug74603: PHP INI Parsing Stack Buffer Overflow Vulnerability;
  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring;
  • updated Litespeed SAPI to 6.11.


  • CVE-2017-11143: wddx parsing empty boolean tag leads to SIGSEGV;
  • CVE-2017-11144: negative-size-param (-1) in memcpy in zif_openssl_seal();
  • CVE-2017-11145: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date();
  • CVE-2017-11146: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date() (caused by CVE-2017-11145);
  • CVE-2017-7890: Buffer over-read into uninitialized memory;
  • CVE-2017-9224: Buffer Overflow in match_at() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9226: Heap corruption in next_state_val() in 15 encodings (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9227: Bug in mbc_enc_len() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9228: Heap corruption in next_state_val() due to uninitialized local variable (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9229: SIGSEGV in left_adjust_char_head() due to bad dereference (Oniguruma issue);
  • bug70436: Use After Free Vulnerability in unserialize();
  • bug74603: PHP INI Parsing Stack Buffer Overflow Vulnerability;
  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring;
  • updated Litespeed SAPI to 6.11.


  • CVE-2017-11143: wddx parsing empty boolean tag leads to SIGSEGV;
  • CVE-2017-11144: negative-size-param (-1) in memcpy in zif_openssl_seal();
  • CVE-2017-11145: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date();
  • CVE-2017-11146: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date() (caused by CVE-2017-11145);
  • CVE-2017-7890: Buffer over-read into uninitialized memory;
  • CVE-2017-9224: Buffer Overflow in match_at() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9226: Heap corruption in next_state_val() in 15 encodings (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9227: Bug in mbc_enc_len() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9228: Heap corruption in next_state_val() due to uninitialized local variable (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9229: SIGSEGV in left_adjust_char_head() due to bad dereference (Oniguruma issue);
  • bug70436: Use After Free Vulnerability in unserialize();
  • bug74603: PHP INI Parsing Stack Buffer Overflow Vulnerability;
  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring;
  • updated Litespeed SAPI to 6.11.


  • CVE-2017-11143: wddx parsing empty boolean tag leads to SIGSEGV;
  • CVE-2017-11144: negative-size-param (-1) in memcpy in zif_openssl_seal();
  • CVE-2017-11145: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date();
  • CVE-2017-11146: wddx_deserialize() heap out-of-bound read via php_parse_date() (caused by CVE-2017-11145);
  • CVE-2017-7890: Buffer over-read into uninitialized memory;
  • CVE-2017-9224: Buffer Overflow in match_at() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9226: Heap corruption in next_state_val() in 15 encodings (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9227: Bug in mbc_enc_len() (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9228: Heap corruption in next_state_val() due to uninitialized local variable (Oniguruma issue);
  • CVE-2017-9229: SIGSEGV in left_adjust_char_head() due to bad dereference (Oniguruma issue);
  • bug70436: Use After Free Vulnerability in unserialize();
  • bug74603: PHP INI Parsing Stack Buffer Overflow Vulnerability;
  • ALTPHP-351: made lsphp error messages more informative;
  • ALTPHP-354: SIGCHILD handler fix after CRIU restoring;
  • updated Litespeed SAPI to 6.11.

To update run:

yum clean all --enablerepo=cl-ea4-testing yum update ea-php* --enablerepo=cl-ea4-testing
Categories: Technology

A prayer towards the end of a clergy sabbatical

Sussex Parson - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 10:49
I wrote this prayer towards the beginning of my sabbatical.

Here's something of what I've been praying this final week of my sabbatical:

Heavenly Father,
Thank you for this sabbatical:
For the financial assistance I’ve received;
For time and space and freedom;
For the privilege of worshiping with your people in a variety of different places without being responsible for leading.
Thank you for all who have ministered to me and who have helped me;
For those who have given of their time and expertise;
For those I’ve met who have been a blessing to me;
For all that I’ve been able to do and to think about;
For the rest, refreshment and challenges;
For the opportunity to experience new places and different things.
Thank you for every encouragement.
Thank you for the ways in which I’ve been stretched and stimulated.
And for the ways I’ve been able to minister and study.
Thank you for all that has been achieved.
Thank you for those who have looked after my responsibilities in my absence.

Help me not to be preoccupied by what has not been done.

I continue to pray that the study I have done might bear fruit for me and for the church.

Help me as I consider my return to my normal ministries.
Help me to listen as I seek to discover what has happened in my absence and how things have been.
Give me grace where I might have done things differently.
Help me particularly as I return to the busyness of perhaps a number of things that are over-due my attention.
Give me wisdom as I consider priorities for the immediate and longer-term future.
Help me to say “no” to things appropriately where that’s the right thing to do.
In particular, help me to give myself to prayer the ministry of the Word.
Help me to be a faithful pastor to those you’ve entrusted to my care and to do the work of an evangelist.
Make me willing to serve whole-heartedly and self-sacrificially in all the roles to which you’ve called me.
Again, I pray that you would help me to have in place patterns that will help to sustain a healthy long-term ministry.
Bless and guard our family-life.   
Give me those who will partner with me faithfully in prayer and ministry and help me to be a good friend and fellow-worker to others.
Help me as I share ideas for future ministry with others.
Give me grace to encourage others.
Give us grace to consider what we should pursue and what good things we should leave undone.

Forgive my sins and failures.
Grant me your grace and empower me with your Spirit. In your mercy, may I play my part in your purposes faithfully and to your glory. AmenMarc Lloyd
Categories: Friends

Psalm 13 jottings

Sussex Parson - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 10:38

Psalm 13 notes


When prayer seems unanswered / God seems far away or absent or appears to hide / when feeling forgotten (by God) / when wrestling with thoughts / sorrowful / defeated / enemies triumph / when feeling near death

Outlines / structure:

Expositor’s Bible:

Waiting for God’s Salvation

Expression of despair: how long? (vv1-2)
Expression of prayer: give me light! (vv3-4)
Expression of hope and trust: let me sing! (vv5-6)

Goldingay, Baker Commentary

How long, how long, how long, how long?

Wilcock, BST:

1. Distinctive pattern, distinctive prayer
2. Looking backward, looking forward

Kidner, Tyndale:

Desolation into delight

Vv1-2, desolation
Vv3-4, supplication
Vv5-6, certainty

Motyer, Psalms by the Day: A New Devotional Translation

Still waiting, still trusting

A. The fourfold ‘How long’: protracted anxiety
B. The threefold ‘in case’: urgent threats
C. The twofold rejoicing: the fruit of trust

Wilson, NIV Application Commentary

Questioning God (vv1-2)
Plea for deliverance from approaching death (vv3-4)
Trust and confidence (vv5-6)




The Psalm suggests “the state in which hope despairs, and yet despair hopes” so Luther according to James L. Mays, cited in Goldingay, p208.

Kidner: “The three pairs of verses climb up from the depths to a fine vantage-point of confidence and hope. If the path is prayer (v3f), the sustaining energy is the faith expressed in verse 5. The prospect from the summit (v5) is exhilarating, and the retrospect (v6) overwhelming.” (p77)

The sections of the Psalm become steadily shorter

Pain, prayer & praise (Wilcock, p50)

“in each stanza the psalmist is concerned with God, with himself, and with his circumstances, in that order.” (Wilcock, p50)

Almost a howl (Keller) – a deep sense of abandonment (Goldingay)

A dose of realism – not pious pretence

A Psalm that gives us permission to be honest with God about how we really feel, to repeatedly question him, to come to him with our doubts / worries / challenges / “issues” . struggles / agony

A personal 1stperson Psalm but also for the music director – how does this affect the reading of the Psalm?

The Psalm considered as the words of Christ – a Psalm Jesus could have prayed on the cross when forsaken by his Father – suffering then vindication pattern

Is God’s absence real or felt / perceived only?

The Psalmist’s problem(s): how he feels (vv1-2)

Vv1-2, Goldingay, aggressive, confrontational – a uniquely impertinent 4-fold question

How long? - Ps 62:3; Hab 1:2; Ps 74:10; 80:4; 94:3; Ex 16:28; Num 14:11, 27 – rhetorical, not a request for information – implication, this is intolerable and needs to stop now – Jer 47:6

Zech 7:13

Vv1-2 – Kidner: the distress analysed in relation to God, to the Psalmist himself and to his enemy.

Motyer, “In turn, divine remoteness, personal indecision / uncertainty, human enmity. The causes of potential breakdown are supernatural, personal, circumstantial. What a recipe!” (p35)

Yahweh, why are you ignoring / neglecting me? Why don’t you act?

The act of praying presupposes that God hears / might hear – he keeps praying! Pray even if it seems God is not listening or responding

Even great King David had his share of sufferings and distress

Cf. Ex 2:24f

V1b, cf. David’s longing to behold God’s face – 11:7; 17:15; cf. 27:4, 8; 34:5 – a clouded friendship Job 29:1ff; 30:20ff; Ps 22:1ff

The Psalmist is not experiencing the blessing of God’s face - Num 6:24-26

David’s plight seems interminable to him – 2 Pt 3:8

How long? echoed in Rev 6:10

V2, “How long will I place plans before my soul?” – plans a plural of amplitude, set plan after plan before – turmoil of thought cf. 77:3-6

Cf. Prov 26:24

V2 – before myself, before my soul (nepes, spirit, self), lit. in / within – to myself – protracted anxiety, different ideas about how to deal with the situation – what am I to do? What can I do? Should I try this or that or the other? Agonising ? about causes, causes of action etc.

V2 – enemy – cf. ? 1 Sam 27:1, with its counsel of despair

What he prays for (vv3-4)

Vv3-4 – God and David’s enemy as two poles of his life

V3 – Take note (notice), answer – two verbs without conjunction – cf. 10:10 – answer lookingly – a look is enough, reassuring David of favour, lifting the trouble, sending the enemy packing (Motyer)

V3 – My God – personal faith under trial – cf. Mk 15:34 – Yahweh is still the Psalmist’s God even though Yahweh seems hidden / absent

V3 – enlighten my eyes – cf. 1 Sam 14:27, countenance, eyes of renewed vitality, resilience – suggests encouragement – Ps 19:8; 118:27; Ezra 9:8

V3b – cf. Mk 14:33f

V3b – illness involved as cause or effect?

V4 – “in case my enemy say: “I have proved able for him”” – i.e. I have prevailed over him (Motyer), I was more than a match for him

V4 – ‘emmot, I am shaken, fall down – and don’t get up again – dead?!

The Psalmist’s resolve and his reasons (vv5-6)

Reasons for trust / rejoicing / singing (in the midst of / despite the realities of the Ps?)

V5 – And / but – And might be a way of suggesting this was his experience throughout

V5 – the I is emphatic, but for my part I…

V5 – committed love – 5:7

V6 – 13 words of one syllable

V6 – “because he is sure to deal fully with me” – treating the verb as a perfect of certainty (Motyer), “Trust brings delight even when nothing has actually yet changed.” – cf. 1 Sam 1:18

Gamal, “he has acted fully for me”, has done all that should be done, all that is necessary

“good” – cf. Eph 3:20

Vv5-6 – a prophetic perfect expressing certainty of future deliverance as a past even?

Phil 1:6 – God’s goodness to us in the past assures us he will bring his work in us to completion

Rom 8:28

Eugene Peterson suggests our real need is not more information / answers to our questions / insight into God’s plans and the future but God’s presence and love, God himself to be an ever-present help in times of trouble.

Marc Lloyd
Categories: Friends

The Good Book Company's Summer Camp playlist

The Good Book Company - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 09:56

We need your help! It's summer camp time for many of us so we're compiling a playlist. So far we've got School's Out, Singing in the Rain (hopefully not!) and Dancing in the Dark.

Please give us your (appropriate) suggestions and we'll add them to our playlist.

Categories: Christian Resources

Foreign Office agency says biblical morality is 'hateful'

Christian Concern - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 09:52
Tim Dieppe comments on a report by Wilton Park (an executive agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), which urges reinterpretation of Scripture and the imposition of LGBTI ideology on evangelical Christians in the Global South.

The Barnabas Fund has highlighted that a report by Wilton Park (an executive agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) urges reinterpretation of Scripture and the imposition of LGBTI ideology on evangelical Christians in the Global South. The report describes biblical sexual morality has 'hateful' and evangelical Christians in prejudicial terms. Tim Dieppe says the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should disassociate themselves from this report.


read more

Sailing up Brexit creek to disaster

Lustig's Letter - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 09:02
I can't quite believe I'm writing this, but I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for the UK's chief Brexit negotiator David Davis.
There he was in Brussels (if but briefly), face to face with his steely-eyed EU counterpart Michel Barnier, and all he could hear in his head were the voices of his Cabinet colleagues.
'Be tough.' (International trade secretary Liam Fox). 'Be flexible.' (Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond) 'Tell 'em to go whistle.' (Foreign secretary Boris Johnson) 'Make sure we get a soft landing.' (Home secretary Amber Rudd)
And that's just what they're saying in public. God only knows what they're saying in private.
Imagine you're a car salesman and a couple come in to buy a new car. They want a good deal, of course, so they try to negotiate. Partner A: 'We want a deal that's fair to both sides.' Partner B: 'No, we don't. We're perfectly prepared to walk away with no deal at all if we don't get what we want.'
They squabble. They bicker. They call each other names. I don't know about you, but if I were that salesman, I'd leave them to it and find something else to do. Which is exactly what the EU will be tempted to until and unless Mrs May's bunch of squabblers get their act together.
This is what happens when prime ministers lose their authority, because the four senior ministers I cited above all think they have a real chance of taking over when Mrs M finally throws in the towel.
So, of course, does David Davis, who is in effect running the Brexit negotiations -- which he says make landing on the moon look simple -- while simultaneously trying to position himself for a successful leadership bid.
It is a recipe for disaster. And the only hope of resolving it is that during their summer break, enough Conservative MPs will come to accept that they need to find themselves a new leader pronto.
Some of the older ones might even recall Sir Geoffrey Howe's speech when he resigned from Margaret Thatcher's government in 1990. He complained bitterly about her attitude towards the EU, which he said was like 'sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.'
In David Davis's case, it's not so much that his team captain has handed him a broken bat, but instead has provided him with a whole selection of bats, of varying shapes and sizes, none of which seem to be any good. What's more, she's forgotten to tell him what the rules of the game are.
No wonder M Barnier is complaining of a 'lack of clarity' in the UK's bargaining position. How can there possibly be clarity as long as the government is so deeply split and the prime minister has lost all authority?
I can't honestly think of a single way in which the UK's negotiating position could be worse. The country is divided, the government is divided, and the opposition is divided. Even if, against all the odds, David Davis is able to negotiate a deal before March 2019 (the two-year time limit from when the UK formally informed Brussels that it intends to leave), the chances of it winning the support of the Commons are vanishingly small.
So here's a thought. When a computer blows a gasket, you can often reset it to a date that takes it back to before the problem occurred. There ought to be a similar System Restore facility in Westminster, so that we could just turn back the clock to the day before the Brexit referendum and do it all again.
When the UK's former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, resigned last January, complaining that  'serious multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall', I translated his parting remarks as meaning 'We're up the creek without a paddle.'
Six months later, we seem to be even further up the creek -- and still without a paddle. It'll soon be time to grab hold of the life jackets.

Categories: Current Affairs

How to use Cloudflare for Service Discovery

CloudFlare - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 09:01

Cloudflare runs 3,588 containers, making up 1,264 apps and services that all need to be able to find and discover each other in order to communicate -- a problem solved with service discovery.

You can use Cloudflare for service discovery. By deploying microservices behind Cloudflare, microservices’ origins are masked, secured from DDoS and L7 exploits and authenticated, and service discovery is natively built in. Cloudflare is also cloud platform agnostic, which means that if you have distributed infrastructure deployed across cloud platforms, you still get a holistic view of your services and the ability to manage your security and authentication policies in one place, independent of where services are actually deployed.

How it works

Service locations and metadata are stored in a distributed KV store deployed in all 100+ Cloudflare edge locations (the service registry).

Services register themselves to the service registry when they start up and deregister themselves when they spin down via a POST to Cloudflare’s API. Services provide data in the form of a DNS record, either by giving Cloudflare the address of the service in an A (IPv4) or AAAA (IPv6) record, or by providing more metadata like transport protocol and port in an SRV record.

Services are also automatically registered and deregistered by health check monitors so only healthy nodes are sent traffic. Health checks are over HTTP and can be setup with custom configuration so that responses to the health check must return a specific response body and or response code otherwise the nodes are marked as unhealthy.

Traffic is distributed evenly between redundant nodes using a load balancer. Clients of the service discovery query the load balancer directly over DNS. The load balancer receives data from the service registry and returns the corresponding service address. If services are behind Cloudflare, the load balancer returns a Cloudflare IP address to route traffic to the service through Cloudflare’s L7 proxy.

Traffic can also be sent to specific service nodes based on client geography, so the data replication service in North America, for example, can talk to a specific North American version of the billing service, or European data can stay in Europe.

Clients query the service registry over DNS, and service location and metadata is packaged in A, AAAA, CNAME or SRV records. The benefit of this is that no additional client software needs to be installed on service nodes beyond a DNS client. Cloudflare works natively over DNS, meaning that if your services have a DNS client, there’s no extra software to install, manage, upgrade or patch.

While usually, TTL’s in DNS mean that if a service location changes or deregisters, clients may still get stale information, Cloudflare DNS keeps low TTL’s (it’s able to do this and maintain fast performance because of its distributed network) and if you are using Cloudflare as a proxy, the DNS answers always point back to Cloudflare even when the IP’s of services behind Cloudflare change, removing the effect of cache staleness.

If your services communicate over HTTP/S and websockets, you can additionally use Cloudflare as a L7 proxy for added security, authentication and optimization. Cloudflare prevents DDoS attacks from hitting your infrastructure, masks your IP’s behind its network, and routes traffic through an optimized edge PoP to edge PoP route to shave latency off the internet.

Once service <--> service traffic is going through Cloudflare, you can use TLS client certificates to authenticate traffic between your services. Cloudflare can authenticate traffic at the edge by ensuring that the client certificate presented during the TLS handshake is signed by your root CA.

Setting it up

Sign up for Cloudflare account

During the signup process, add all your initial services as DNS records in the DNS editor.

To finish sign up, move DNS to Cloudflare by logging into your registrar and changing your nameservers to the Cloudflare nameservers assigned to you when you signed up for Cloudflare. If you want traffic to those services to be proxied through Cloudflare, click on the cloud next to each DNS record to make it orange.

Run a script on each node so that:

On startup, the node sends a POST to the DNS record API to register itself and PUT to load balancing API to add itself to the origin pool.

On shutdown, the node sends a DELETE to the DNS record API to deregister itself and PUT to load balancing API to remove itself to the origin pool.

These can be accomplished via startup and shutdown scripts on Google Compute Engine or user data scripts or auto scaling lifecycle hooks on AWS.


curl -X POST "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"type":"SRV","data":{"service":"_http","proto":"_tcp","name":"name","priority":1,"weight":1,"port":80,"target":""},"ttl":1,"zone_name":"","name":"","content":"SRV 1 1 80","proxied":false,"proxiable":false,"priority":1}'


curl -X DELETE "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json"

Add or remove an origin from an origin pool (this should be a unique IP per node added to the pool):

curl -X PUT "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"description":"Primary data center - Provider XYZ","name":"primary-dc-1","enabled":true,"monitor":"f1aba936b94213e5b8dca0c0dbf1f9cc","origins":[{"name":"app-server-1","address":"","enabled":true}],"notification_email":""}'

Create a health check. You can do this in the API or in the Cloudflare dashboard (in the Load Balancer card).

curl -X POST "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"type":"https","description":"Login page monitor","method":"GET","path":"/health","header":{"Host":[""],"X-App-ID":["abc123"]},"timeout":3,"retries":0,"interval":90,"expected_body":"alive","expected_codes":"2xx"}'

Create an initial load balancer, either through the API or in the Cloudflare dashboard.

curl -X POST "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"description":"Load Balancer for","name":"","ttl":30,"fallback_pool":"17b5962d775c646f3f9725cbc7a53df4","default_pools":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196","00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"],"region_pools":{"WNAM":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"ENAM":["00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"]},"pop_pools":{"LAX":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"LHR":["abd90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","f9138c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"SJC":["00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"]},"proxied":true}'

(optional) Setup geographic routing rules. You can do this via API or in the Cloudflare dashboard.

curl -X POST "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"description":"Load Balancer for","name":"","ttl":30,"fallback_pool":"17b5962d775c646f3f9725cbc7a53df4","default_pools":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196","00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"],"region_pools":{"WNAM":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"ENAM":["00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"]},"pop_pools":{"LAX":["de90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","9290f38c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"LHR":["abd90f38ced07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194","f9138c5d07c2e2f4df57b1f61d4196"],"SJC":["00920f38ce07c2e2f4df50b1f61d4194"]},"proxied":true}'

(optional) Setup Argo for faster PoP to PoP transit in the traffic app of the Cloudflare dashboard.

(optional) Setup rate limiting via API or in the dashboard

curl -X POST "" \ -H "X-Auth-Email:" \ -H "X-Auth-Key: c2547eb745079dac9320b638f5e225cf483cc5cfdda41" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{"id":"372e67954025e0ba6aaa6d586b9e0b59","disabled":false,"description":"Prevent multiple login failures to mitigate brute force attacks","match":{"request":{"methods":["GET","POST"],"schemes":["HTTP","HTTPS"],"url":"**"},"response":{"status":[401,403],"origin_traffic":true}},"bypass":[{"name":"url","value":"*"}],"threshold":60,"period":900,"action":{"mode":"simulate","timeout":86400,"response":{"content_type":"text/xml","body":"<error>This request has been rate-limited.</error>"}}}'

(optional) Setup TLS client authentication. (Enterprise only) Send your account manager your root CA certificate and which options you would like enabled.

Categories: Technology

Imunify360 2.4-12 released

CloudLinux - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 08:14

We are pleased to announce that the new updated beta Imunify360 version 2.4-12 is now available. This latest version embodies further improvements of the product as well as new features. Imunify360 also has become more reliable and stable due to the bug fixes described below.

Should you encounter any problems with product or have any questions, comments or suggestions, please contact our support team at Imunify360 department. We’d be more than happy to help you.


Imunify360 2.4-12

  • DEF-2309: import CSF blocked ports into imunify360;
  • DEF-2574: ON DELETE CASCADE for hit_extras table;
  • DEF-1893: fixed trace for "imunify360-agent clean --days" with too large int;
  • DEF-2530: web scans work correctly in Plesk env;
  • DEF-2542: fixed "following configuration is already active" check for locale is not "en";
  • DEF-2156: added mail directory to inotify scanner;
  • DEF-2434: added ability to switch "Full access" for existing whitelisted IPs;
  • DEF-2489: fixed bug with full_access and move to blacklist;
  • DEF-2494: added opting out of Reporting;
  • DEF-2497:Added support of "--full-access" keyword to "move" & "edit" commands;
  • DEF-2540: added /tmp/.vdserver to csf.ignore;
  • DEF-2550: fixed KeyError('method',) in malformed {'msg': 'server suspended: empty server id', 'success': 'false'}

To instal new beta Imunify360 version 2.4-12 please follow the instructions inthe documentation.

The upgrading is available since 2.0-19 version.

To upgrade Imunify360 run the command:

yum update imunify360-firewall --enablerepo=imunify360-testing

More information on Imunify360 can be found here.

Categories: Technology

We fear Sir Michael Marmot is confused here but it's a good plan anyway

Adam Smith Institute - Fri, 21/07/2017 - 07:01

Sir Michael Marmot is famed as the academic who told us all that health inequality is caused by economic inequality. we don't doubt that this is partially true although we'd really like to insist that health inequality will produce economic as well. Becoming bedridden and incapable to work at age 40 will lead to income inequality at age 60.

His latest work tells us that life expectancy is rising more slowly in the aftermath of the recession. This could of course be true. We might even agree with Owen Jones here:

An ideologically driven programme of cuts is almost certainly robbing us of life. Consistently rising life expectancy should be something we all take for granted. The UK, after all, is one of the wealthiest societies that has ever existed in human history. There are continuing dramatic improvements in medicine and technology. And yet new research by an ex-government adviser, Sir Michael Marmot, suggests that the rise in life expectancy – a constant trend for a hundred years – has stalled since 2010. What happened that year, exactly? Was that not when David Cameron, George Osborne and their Lib Dem stooges began slashing public services with a false economic pretext?

And thus the call for revolution:

Is there any clearer evidence of how utterly bankrupt our social order is? Human and social progress is grinding to a halt in Britain. Life is getting more insecure and poorer for millions – soon, it may even be getting shorter. That’s why we don’t just need a change in government in Britain, we need a change in how we organise our society. A peaceful, democratic revolution is long overdue in Britain, for the sake of our living standards, our health – and for the sake of our very lives.

Well, OK. So, what exactly should the revolution consist of? As Marmot points to:

There is no reason why the UK could not emulate Hong Kong, where life expectancy for men is 81.1 years for men and 87.3 for women – the highest in the world – Marmot added. Hong Kong has overtaken Japan in terms of how long citizens can expect to live.

So, let's increase economic inequality up to Hong Kong levels then, cut social spending down to Hong Kong levels and slash government overall to Hong Kong levels. We're just fine with that but we do think that Professor Marmot, given his usual proclivities, is confused here. And no one at all is surprised that Young Owen is confused at all, are they?

Categories: Current Affairs


Subscribe to aggregator
Additional Terms