Inside Tom's Brain

Insanity, Irresponsibility, Hypocrisy, and Complicity

2009-04-09T23:27:00.012-04:00

In the news today an "alleged" drunk driver ran a red light and killed a young pitcher in the prime of his life. After the sadness and some outrage nothing will change. This kind of thing happens every day and it's tolerated.

Yet the same people responsible for creating and enforcing laws in this country are dead-set against marijuana, even for medicinal use.

That's crazy hypocrisy.

Now I just watched William Cohan on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart explaining in very simple terms the insanely flimsy and 'hard to believe it's legal' foundation for Bear Stearns business model and the reason for it's collapse.

This is the first time I've heard about how this crazy system works. On all of the news programs, all of the political blogs, through all the political campaigns over the past twenty years I have never had an inkling of the insane system that the investment banking and hedge funds operate under.

That's crazy enough, but the thought of hundreds of Billions of taxpayer dollars being given to this same system (and many of the same people) to prop it up is the height of insanity and irresponsibility!

I think that if the people of this nation/world truly realized how they were being used to prop up this house of cards they would revolt.. and why don't they know?

Isn't that the job of journalism?

And why are our elected representatives part of the problem?

Some Random Thoughts Roaming My Mind

2009-03-19T19:13:00.013-04:00

[Sorry about the screwy formatting (grrr), but I'm 'wicked tired' and I've got to eat something..]

1. People are frustrated by all this taxpayer $$ flying out the door and having no control.

2. The credit society most people live in got them (and the lending institutions) into very bad
unsustainable habits.

3. The Bush administration reinforced #2 by committing our forces to a war where the
American people were purposely kept disengaged (no 'war tax' etc.. "War? What war.
Mistakes? No mistakes here..").

Going from a balanced budget and a surplus to Trillion-dollar deficit spending under Bush.
'Heck of a job George...'.

3a. 'Due diligence'.... There was little to no 'due diligence' (except maybe to protecting
"secrets") over the entire Bush administration's tenure.

4. Current frustrations include millionaire financial misfits getting rewarded despite
the fact that they helped create the mess.

- And as far as I'm concerned, there is no place in a responsible society for
failure to be rewarded.

5. This bailout money is corporate welfare.
Ask any social worker about the restrictions imposed if you take public assistance.

I'm sure it's a culture shock and a rude awakening to these millionaire executives to have to
show restraint and contrition. To suddenly be answerable to the people who have to bail their
sorry incompetent asses out when they've gotten used to answering to no one except a chosen few.

Most people that have jobs work hard and many pay their bills on time, only to see their
retirement accounts wiped out or drastically deflated while top executives get their
'golden parachutes' and rewarding failure with 'performance bonuses'.

They see billions literally thrown at companies* owned by friends of Bush/Cheney. Billions
more thrown to corrupt foreign governments/officials and terrorist organizations.
They see inexperienced political appointees given the job of 'overseeing' critical programs
including spending in Iraq.
Instead of appointing the most competent people to government positions, neophytes whose
primary qualifications are party loyalty and monetary contributions to that same party
were chosen.

Crimes and mismanagement were covered up by over-reaching "secrecy" policies

Between the corruption here at home, and the corruption in many of the foreign
governments that we provide[d] money to, what percent actually got to where it was
supposed to? (We can't tell because too many of the people responsible for that were either
incompetent or complicit themselves!)

- Now picture yourself as President Obama [voluntarily] stepping into this huge
disaster created by seven years of Bush/Cheney and the republican majority (and *some*
democrats).

You can't possibly accomplish anything by yourself (other than by example and leadership)
so you have to delegate much of it to others, some of whom will undoubtedly mess some
things up.

Being a man of courage class and honor he takes ultimate responsibility for his errors and
those in his administration who make mistakes (as opposed to 'having faith in them' but
taking no responsibility and never admitting to any mistakes [as the previous administration
did]).

If most people were truthful and honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that
(were they in President Obama's shoes) they would have either snapped under the pressure
or be looking for some form of escape via medication or heavy drinking.

To Obama's credit, he appears to be holding up fairly well and providing
leadership amidst all the turmoil surrounding him.

He needs to reign in some of his closest advisers though. Rahm Emanuel and others are
making his job harder at the moment.

Don't forget the Republican party (what's left of it), led by a hateful radio commentator (one
of many) who are acting like juvenile delinquents and doing absolutely nothing to help their
constituents by standing in the way of everything President Obama and Congress try to get
done.

America needs their help, and they're hoping for (and contributing to) *our*
failure.

- Picture President Obama trying to scale a wall (holding America's future and
well-being) while other Americans (mainly Republicans) throw crap on him and
try to saw off the bottom of the ladder instead of helping him get up the wall.

And despite all this you will still find far too many people leaving comments on progressive
web sites [and others] being hypercritical, and saying things like "If Bush and Cheney were
back in the White House everything would be just fine.". (Kool-Aid withdrawal/accepting
reality must be very hard for some )

*Some of whom provided sub-standard services, some that put the health and safety of our troops at risk, some that killed innocent civilians, alienating potential allies, some that
basically sanctioned rape of their own employees, and almost all of them protected from
criminal penalties by the administration who considered itself 'untouchable'.

Leo Laporte's daughter going to her Senior Prom..

2008-05-28T06:20:00.006-04:00

As soon as I heard Leo mention (on his TWiT [This Week in Tech] podcast I think) the fact that his daughter was going to her senior prom, my thoughts immediately went to this image* of the two of them that I saved from the 'TechTV' days.

I think Leo's got a couple of great kids, and they have a great dad.

* It's been 'altered' with various effects like Paint.

Earth To Bush Administration.. No More! No Torture. No Exceptions.

2008-03-19T16:40:00.010-04:00

This article in The Washington Monthly is about the use of torture by the US and seeks to end the "debate" about it's use, effectiveness, effects on those who engage in it and those who experience it, and the effects on the United States, it's allies and it's adversaries.

The article has links to 37 (if I counted correctly) individual articles on this subject by contributors like Jimmy Carter, Wesley Clark, Peter Bergen, Lee H. Hamilton & Thomas H. Kean, Chris Dodd, Kenneth M. Duberstein & Richard Armitage, Bob Barr, and Chuck Hagel.

I was alerted to it through Wesley Clark's newsletter. I think he put it well where he wrote:

"Torture is illegal, ineffective, and morally wrong. The United States has signed numerous treaties condemning torture and abjuring its practice. Those treaties are the law of the land. And, yes, waterboarding is torture: in the past, we convicted and punished foreign nationals for torture by waterboarding. There are no legal loopholes permitting torture in "exceptional cases." After all, those were the same excuses used by the torturers we once condemned.[...]"
(bold emphasis mine)
(The rest of Wesley Clark's article can be read on this page at The Washington Monthly)

I think it's a sad state of affairs that this issue is even considered "debatable". Too many people mixing the fiction of TV shows like "24" with reality, and in some cases the main stream media contributing to that confusion.

Reality and what's 'right' aren't factors that the Bush administration seem to consider. Morality is not an issue. And I don't think any group of notables, no matter how distinguished or how right they are, will change the course of this administration. Especially in the short time left.

In the scary proposition that somehow McCain was elected President, I'm not at all sure if much would change for the better. I'd like to think that [he] would change the policy on torture, but as far as the 'my way or nothing' belligerent attitude of our current foreign policy, and towards the legislative branch (so long as it has a Democratic majority), I have serious doubts.

I don't see that being *much* of a possibility, but Bush did get elected twice..

Let us all work towards a Democratic victory in the fall, then the work can begin in earnest repairing the Constitution and the rule of law, our international reputation, the health of our military, the health of our economy, and so much more.

Other things high on my wish list are things like refocusing our "representatives" attention on their individual constituents and limiting the influence of lobbyists. And speaking of 'health', how about the health of [all of] our citizens!

Take some time and read the individual articles, then think (and work) towards a time in the not so distant future where ideals like those of the authors can be our common reality and not something from the past.

A .PDF file containing all the individual articles is available for download on the page containing the main article "No More - No Torture. No Exceptions.", along with individual links [along the left side of the page] .

*Image used above is from The Washington Monthly article.

ALERT: This Program Steals Your Login Credentials!

2008-03-12T05:10:00.008-04:00

I just read this article by Robert Vamosi over at Webware.com about programmer Dustin Brooks who discovered that the program "G-Archiver" sends the login credentials of everyone who signs up for the program to the email account of it's author John Terry.

Brooks was looking for a program to back up his Gmail account when he discovered G-Archiver.

"He signed up for a program called G-Archiver distributed by Mate Media of Miami, Fla. Brooks says that after installing the program, it didn't do all he was looking for so he decided to reverse engineer the source code using a program called Reflector for .Net.

Inside the source code Brooks found the program author's e-mail address and account password for Gmail. Thinking that was a little strange, Brooks used the hardcoded information to open John Terry's Gmail account. There, Brooks alleges he found 1,777 messages, all of which had username and passwords for people who signed up for the G-Archiver, including his own. In other words, whenever anyone signed up for the program, as Brooks had, a copy of his or her username and password was sent to John Terry's Gmail account.

Hardcoding e-mail addresses isn't new. In a presentation at Black Hat D.C. 2008 a few weeks ago, researchers Nitesh Dhanjani and Billy Rios reported that phishing site creators frequently hardcode e-mail addresses into the code in order to receive copies of the personal information submitted independent of where the Web form is being sent."

You can read the rest over at Webware.com, but I have to say that reading this makes me wonder what other programs out there do this. It certainly makes an argument for Open-Source software. Being the healthy skeptic and cautious person that I am, I've wondered about this in the past. The only thing protecting most customers is the reputation of the company/author, and inquisitive (and skilled) people like Dustin Brooks.

My Best Friend in 1963

2008-02-15T16:30:00.004-05:00

Pepsi, daughter of Taffy. Maybe close to a year old in this picture. The Pilgrim Fellowship group at Dad's church in Monterey named her. The Tryons raised beautiful Golden Retrievers, and I think we picked the best of the litter.

Something's Different

2008-01-31T22:10:00.001-05:00

Yes, I finally changed over to the new template. I decided to mirror my other blog's appearance. As I find the time I'll add more links and some different page elements.

I've been trying to concentrate on my BlogsNH blog "TechAlert", and I've got a new post there called "Parents And Kids 'Growing Up Online'". If you haven't seen the PBS - Frontline program "Growing Up Online" you should, especially if you have kids still in school.

I've been concentrating on computer security and other tech-related stuff lately and avoiding politics as much as I can, so that's one of the main reasons the posts here have been sparse.
One of the other reasons is the topic of my latest post over at The Endicott Dispatch.

The nature of campaign politics and the way it being covered by most of the media turns me off.
I'm counting the days until this group of criminals is out of the White House and we can start to repair the damage they've done.

As that time gets closer I'll have more to say. In the mean time, my posts here might change from the political rants to other topics...Inside Tom's Brain.

Who Knew? (probably everyone but me....)

2008-01-15T09:28:00.001-05:00

In news relating to "Daggett's", brought to my attention via my "Daggett" Google News Alerts and The Pueblo Chieftain Online:

------------------------------------------------------------

TIN MEN

On Saturday, get out your can opener and give thanks for the brainchild of Ezra Daggett and Thomas Kensett. On this date in 1825, the men obtained a patent for the process of storing food in tin cans. And all the beans lived happily ever after.

------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from the lead poisoning associated with the solder, this was really significant.

And I'm really thankful that my parents named me Thomas and not Ezra!

After Tomorrow

2008-01-07T21:45:00.000-05:00

Things will be quieting down here in New Hampshire (until November).

For me (and my neighbors here at the Endicott Hotel on Main St. Concord) that means figuratively and literally. Over the past several days (since the Iowa Caucus) the political supporters have been out on the streets like I've never experienced since I moved here in 1979.

The morning of the Iowa Caucus I was awakened by someone beating a snare drum out front. I assume it was a Ron Paul supporter as they were the only ones out that day. It was a frigid day but sunny, and the Paul faithful were out en masse here in Concord.
Since then it's been crazy and noisy, starting around 8 AM and lasting all day long. Horns honking, sometimes blaring all the way down Main Street, groups of supporters chanting or yelling, sometimes to cars going by, other times at each other.

As I said, I've never seen enthusiasm like this here in Concord before the primary, or before the general election. Despite the noise I think it's great to see so many (mostly younger) people out participating in the political process and working for their candidate.

Much of this enthusiasm is undoubtedly due to the unprecedented failure of President Bush and the 'torturous' last seven years. The combination of an unnecessary war that many were fooled into supporting until the truth became evident, an unduly secretive and deceptive President and Vice President, seemingly endless scandals in the Republican party, and a Republican leadership that either looked the other way or was complicit in a plan to dominate and marginalize the opposing party, all the while rubber stamping everything the President asked for, whether legal or not.
-and-
With the price of oil and gasoline tripling, real estate in trouble, the NSA allowed to spy on Americans uncontrolled, billions of dollars spent in Iraq but unnaccounted for, New Orleans neglected, incompetant political appointees heading critical agencies, the Justice Department politicized, and much of the rest of the world now fearful and wondering how far down the road to crazytown Bush will drive the war wagon. Oh, and I almost forgot the disregard and obvious contempt for the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and the rule of law in general as it pertains to Bush's imperial presidency, and the disdain for the poor and the social programs that help them, not to mention the neglect of the veterans that Bush needlessly sent into harms way. Is it any wonder that there is this massive call for change?

As I've heard others say, the President promised to unite the country. Of course it didn't happen the way he said it would (did anything?), but in the end he succeeded in uniting 80% of the country in opposition to him and his failed policies.

After all that has happened over the past seven years, why would any sane, caring person even consider voting for another Republican?

My Favorite Holiday Card

2007-12-24T22:56:00.000-05:00

The title of this card is "Frozen Thung", and inside it says
"Hathy Holidayth".

The first thing I like is that it looks a bit like I did back when I was a little kid.
The other thing is his resemblance to the younger brother in the classic Christmas movie "A Christmas Story" who also froze his tongue to a metal pole. The only thing missing are the kids gathered around him laughing.

So here's to wishing everyone "Hathy Holidayth"!

Here's the info from the back of the card (with my comments added):

Contemporary American Photographers

Photograph [Copyright] 1994 Joe Lampi (<- This guy is good)
Dublin Productions (<- really neat site w/ Flash, check out the photos)
Frothen Thung
[Copyright] Palm Press, Inc. 1995 (<- Interesting cards)
1442A Walnut Street #120
Berkeley, California 94709

Holiday Thoughts on Christmas Eve

2007-12-24T20:57:00.000-05:00

I want to wish everyone a happy and healthy holiday season.

I'm celebrating a traditional but solitary New England Christmas here in New Hampshire, missing my father greatly but recalling wonderful Christmas memories from childhood.

The traditional reading of "The Night Before Christmas" and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", remembering how hard it was to get to sleep on Christmas eve listening for any faint sound that might actually be Santa on the roof, and the rush of anticipation in my belly keeping me awake 'till I finally drifted off to sleep. Then waking up early on Christmas morning, wondering if it's too early to wake mom and dad to get the day started, feeling like it's taking them forever while they make their coffee and have a bit of breakfast before finally gathering around the tree to see if your wishes had been answered by Santa.

I'm also thinking of all the people who might not be having a 'merry' Christmas for whatever reason, including those not able to be with their loved ones for the holidays and those who can't afford to get their kids what they've been asking for the past year. And most recently, the employees who have found themselves suddenly without their jobs just before Christmas.

To many of those folks, remember that there are people out there who care, and tomorrow's always a new day.
And as my father would always say to me when times were tough, "this too shall pass", then he'd remind me to "keep smiling".

Bless you Dad.
And bless all of you, one and all..

Critical Question For Candidates

2007-12-20T18:05:00.000-05:00

Knowing the history of the Presidency regarding the unwillingness to give up presidential powers once their predecessors have gained them (despite how they gained them and whether they're constitutional or not), I think it's imperative that the current candidates for the presidency are asked whether they will reverse the "questionable" powers that Bush has claimed since becoming President. Especially if he's not impeached as he rightfully should be.

If Bush isn't impeached, (as I've stated before) a terrible precedent will have been set on many levels for future Presidents. Candidates need to be on the record (not that that matters anymore) saying that if elected they will renounce the unconstitutional claims of presidential privilege the Bush administration has stubbornly held to since 9/11, clearly and unconditionally.

Instead of the mostly asinine questions asked of candidates, we must ask this one and other critical topics! Electing a president has rarely had so much at stake for the future of our country as this one. If we're not able to reverse the downward decline this president and the majority of the Republican party have "led" us into we will have completely lost the honored position as respected and envied leader of the free world.

Not only thoughtful and respectable people in this country, but people all over the world are waiting to see what happens after the debacle of the Bush presidency is over.

The direction the President has taken us, compounded by the severe lack of representation of the citizenry by Congress in favor of big business interests (and their own) will lead to our downfall eventually. It's surely not what our founders put into place so thoughtfully.
As a matter of fact it's starting to resemble what they rebelled against all those years ago.

Tonight's Countdown [Without] Keith Olbermann

2007-12-17T20:32:00.000-05:00

Just a few thoughts regarding tonight's show.
First of all, of all the people who sub for Keith when he's off Allison Stewart is in my opinion the best. That said, I need to say something about tonight's discussion concerning former President Clinton's "roll the dice" comment from the Charlie Rose show.

I don't understand the questioning of what Clinton's statement 'meant'. It's plain to me that it meant that Hillary is a fairly well known commodity with a good deal of experience, as are the other candidates, except for Barack Obama. It's simply a matter of experience. Now I understand that political journalists like to read 'between the lines' and divine "the real meaning" of statements like this, and sometimes that's necessary, and sometimes the journalists are correct, but sometimes 'a cigar is just a cigar'.

"Roll the dice" means gambling, taking a chance. And to elect someone with a limited amount of experience, even when they have a lot of good ideas and are charismatic, is a calculated risk. Is it not?
In some ways you could say that voting for any of the candidates is a gamble. We've seen too many politicians take stances and vote on issues that oppose what the majority of their constituents want, and in some instances are in direct conflict with the oath they swore to when elected (you know, "To protect and defend the Constitution..."?).

There's no doubt that Hillary's campaign has encountered some bumps in the road, and being almost dead even in the latest polls has undoubtedly made them anxious to draw distinctions between her and Barack Obama. That major distinction is experience. They'd both be a welcome change from what this country and the world has painfully experienced over the past seven years, and are both head and shoulders above anyone running for the Republican party.

Now the idea that Bill Clinton was doing anything other than being truthful when he said that "Obama is a person of enormous talent". I didn't read that as "damning him with fake praise" as it was characterized by Allison and Howard Fineman. And I think Clinton characterized the rest of the field of candidates correctly when he said that all but Obama had a long and fairly extensive history of foreign policy and legislative experience.
I think the same thing. The first time I heard Barack Obama speak he amazed me by how much sense he made and how well he communicated. So much of what he says reflects the same way I feel about many issues. In some ways he has characteristics that none of the other candidates do, and part of that [I think] comes from not being part of the Washington scene for too long. But as far as other (meaning the good) aspects of experience go, he just hasn't had the time or the experience(s).

As for David Gregory's questioning of Hillary Clinton regarding the quote, he clearly interpreted it negatively as simply a 'dig' and not as a simple [political] way to make the distinction between Hillary and Barack Obama. He could have phrased it differently, but competitive politics isn't a case of being as nice to your opponents as you can. These days that was being [relatively] nice!
The questioning by Gregory had the odor of another try for a 'gotcha' moment from a member of the press as opposed to unbiased critical questioning of a candidate and Hillary didn't oblige him.
I truly miss Theresa Heinz Kerry and her forthright and unabashed responses to questions like that. I'd like to think that she would have responded by saying "My husband said it, why aren't you asking him?".

The press can often be so petty.

PS, Allison's comments about Michael Jackson almost made me snort water out my nose!

Crazy For The Holidays

2007-12-12T08:14:00.000-05:00

I plead guilty to neglecting this blog recently.
A few of the reasons are here:

1. Sometimes I just get overwhelmed by the magnitude of scandals, dirty tricks, self-serving talking heads, and election coverage that treats it like a game or spectator sport. Bush and his gang lie with impunity, and right-wing water carriers are still lugging their bilge water.

2. Meanwhile my ADD addled brain is jumping from the holidays, to increased seasonal depression, to a new blog for the Concord Monitor Online's "blogsNH" that I'm about to start. Add to that an upstairs neighbor who walks like Frankenstein, shaking this 100 year old former hotel, a new management company for us who looks to be doing it on the cheap, and the second year of being without my dear old Dad and wanting to move back to Western Mass to be close to my mother who is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's.

When it gets really bad I remember my father's words of wisdom (not that he came up with this, but..) "This too shall pass", and one of his favorites "Smile a lot".

So that's what I'm trying to keep in mind this winter as I do my best to keep all the balls in the air. And if I drop one, rest assured that I'll bend down and pick it up, and toss it back up in the air with the rest as soon as I can.

Troubled times only make the good times that much sweeter to savor.

And remember to "Smile a lot".

A Comment On Comments

2007-11-26T16:53:00.000-05:00

I leave comments from time to time, mostly on political sites like ThinkProgress,The Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake, and TalkingPointsMemo. I'm not quite sure of what this says about me, but so many of the comments I read are either nonsensical, poorly thought out, mis-spelled, childish, or off-topic. Many are varied combinations of that list.

Now I'm certainly not immune to some of this either, but in my defense I've gotten better since I started using WordWeb, some other writing aids like an additional thesaurus (Mobysaurus Thesaurus), the web site Answers.com, and many others. And the best aid of all, taking my time and re-reading my thoughts before clicking "Post".

I know some of this is unfortunately the way many younger people are communicating these days. No capital letters, no punctuation, etc.. And then there's the fact that just because you have a computer, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're educated (or course there are some people that aren't 'educated' but are plenty smart).

I hope this doesn't come across as conceited or anything like that. My formal education ended after high school (and later in life one year of photography school). And to call that an 'education' is being generous. During high school (in the seventies) I was a rocker and a serious partier. I spent most of my time playing the drums with a local band, smoking pot, and drinking beer. But somewhere in there, mostly before and after that part of my life I read a lot. It also helped that my parents were highly intelligent graduates of Colby College and my mother quickly corrected me whenever I mis-spoke.
I'm far from perfect, and I prove it often, but I try to take the time and steps necessary to minimize that fact when I leave comments.

Nowadays I deal with chronic depression, ADD, and severe anxiety, all of which conspire to make writing and thinking clearly a difficult process. I guess that in some ways that forces me to be more careful about what I write and how I write it. And sometimes when I don't put the effort into it I let things go that I'd otherwise spend more time on. The end result being writing that I'm less than proud of, and usually exhibits itself towards the end of whatever I'm writing as my attention and energy fade. My writing is far from perfect, but at least I make the effort to make it understandable.

I assume that this happens to others also. The reasons for thoughtless (or 'less than thoughtful') comments are many, but the reasons for poorly spelled comments aren't. There are typos, which are easily remedied by simply re-reading before posting. Then there are many people who can't spell, which is almost as easily remedied by using one of the hundreds of spell-checking utilities available that underline the mis-spelled words for you.

Then there are the comments that seem to have been written by aliens, some of which actually were written by people from other countries who don't have a good command of english, and others that seem to have come from some beings that are not of this world.
The former is understandable, but there are many that fall into the latter category, undecipherable by the best translators. They're the ones that leave you thinking, HUH?

It's a tossup as to which is more maddening, the inane comments that people pull out of their butts, or the fact that some people are so lazy that they won't bother to use a simple spelling utility that could at least allow them to fake it and not look so stoopid.

These days with all the blogs, forums, and comments sections, most of which are solely print-based, you have to take extra care to make sure your thoughts are conveyed clearly. There are no facial clues or voice inflections for others to notice and thereby access your true feelings or the actual meaning of your comment as opposed to what they think you meant.

I haven't touched on THE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THEY HAVE TO WRITE EVERYTHING IN ALL CAPS, JUST SO...__________________(fill in the blank).
Most veterans of internet forums and such know that this is considered 'yelling' and is bad form, but with more and more new people coming online with computers everyday and joining the world wide conversation there are just so many that haven't learned the proper etiquette, let alone bother to use proper english or spelling. Some know better and do it anyway.

I haven't mentioned 'trolls' either. Those who 'troll' the comments sections of web sites looking to engage in arguments with people that don't share their point of view, and some who purposely go there to derail the legitimate discussion. The reasons are many. These days the small but vocal minority of 'loyal Bushies' seem to be everywhere standing up for their hero, the facts be damned. Among those there are also the religious zealots, well-meaning and otherwise.

I'm finding myself less and less prone to even read the comments sections these days. I am finding some sites that seem to have a more thoughtful and less fanatical commentary but I don't know how to avoid the lazy posts with the typos, et al.
Maybe at a site like PoynterOnline.

I've 'replied' to people's comments from time to time, politely mentioning how easy and helpful spelling assist utilities are, but they're usually met with the 'spelling nazi' reply or some other defensive retort so I don't bother anymore.

I wish it didn't bother me as much. I'd blame my mother, but it's not her fault. I'm glad for her guidance. I feel sorry for those whose parents aren't good role models. I know all to many. Unfortunately ignorance usually breeds ignorance as I'm sure many teachers would agree. The exceptions are wonderful to see and are to be encouraged. But this trend towards 'no rules writing' is bad. I've had people tell me that "it's just the way kids are communicating these days", as if there was nothing that could be done to change it.

It's bad for the future of increased online interaction and bad for accurate communication where all you have to go by are written words.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to re-read my post. I could really use an editor to help me with that, but for now I'll have to muddle through as best I can.

*Did I mention the ones who overuse the bold highlighting feature?

Disgusting "comments" at Military.com

2007-11-23T16:49:00.000-05:00

I followed a link from the Military.com newsletter to an article about an award-winning AP photographer from Iraq who's been 'detained' and imprisoned without charges for 19 months.

After reading the article I went to check out the comments (Join the Discussion) and was disturbed and disgusted by what I read.
(Because the URL is so long for the comments/discussion page here's a shortened URL http://tinyurl.com/295q3o .)

I suggest you read the article, then the comments, and judge for yourself...

Here are some examples from the "discussion":

-------------------------------------------
"I can't believe it took us this long to capture him. Doesn't surprise me at all."
-------------------------------------------
"Just an AP photographer? Hell, I think nearly the whole lot at AP is a cheering section for the terrorists."
---------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by 67NOV:
Just an AP photographer? Hell, I think nearly the whole lot at AP is a cheering section for the terrorists.

"You and me both Sir."
---------------------------------------------
"Michelle Malkin has links to the pictures he's taken... all of insurgent activity, apparently without any fear on his part. If he isn't collaborating with them I'll eat my hat."
--------------------------------------------
"About time the military starts investigating all of this so called "journalists"

First AP,next CNN and finally Aljazeera "
--------------------------------------------
"Well, I've been wrong before, but I think burying this turd in a holr with his head sticking up and letting locals stone the head would probably be a good idea. I'm just old-fashioned like that."
--------------------------------------------
"Well, when you serve, maybe you'll think differently about those who are Terrorists. Enjoy being Protected by others"
--------------------------------------------

- And when someone posted a dissenting view, here's what some wrote:

"Actually, What is laughable,... no it's more like pathetic is all the clueless mouth diarrhea from liberals on this site."
-------------------------------------------- Followed by:

"LMAO, good show, sir. I will buy you a beer for that one. BeerGulp, ahhh.....the beer is nice and cold."
--------------------------------------------
"A corporation will stand behind it's employee regardless of the scurrilousness of the employee only to protect their own image.

We probably have tons of terrorists who have infiltrated many businesses in the U.S. ready to strike. Many others have lawn services.

I am sure the U.S. military wouldn't make these claims without substantial evidence. Of course he is probably photographing military operations and smuggling it to the insurgency in his nose. Can you imagine how many volumes of micro file you can stuff in that jobaruby?

Yikes so that is where all the air is going."
-------------------------------------------
"GEEEEEEEZ! The article states they're going to turn the AP photographer guy over to the Iraq authorities in a few days, so what are all these libs crying about!

Remember, that AP photographer isn't an American and isn't in the USA, he's in a foreign country. Things work differently over there and when under arrest you don't have any rights over there. So if they want to lock the guy up and never let him out, shut him up, or torture him to with in an inch of his life to find out what he knows....... well, that's just how it goes. That's how they do it over there. The guy is a terrorist and his efforts have no doubt cost others their lives, so......... this guy is getting what he deserves, whether you agree with it or not."
------------------------------------------

- There's more, but that's enough to give you the general flavor. As I said, only one person showed any sense of decency (and respect for the rule of law) and supported the AP photographer.

The feeling I got when reading these comments was that they could have been written by those who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. The absolute lack of humanity and the disregard for human rights goes against what I thought the US military stood for and has spent blood protecting.

I have to wonder how prevalent is this ignorant and malevolent attitude in our servicemen and women?

Is this some of what you get when you send people to fight and die in an asymmetric war?

Is it what happens to soldiers when they see their comrades get blown up daily by fighters who look just like the ones they're there to protect?

Does it come from bad leadership?

Just where in hell do these comments come from?

C|NET - Download.com -- Are you confused?

2007-11-23T15:00:00.000-05:00

This is what happens when I (successfully?) log in to Download.com.

As you can see, I'm logged in and it displayed my user name
(Welcome back, "trdaggett"). And if you look at the bottom it also says "Sorry, the identifier/password combination you've entered is invalid.".

I just sent another issue 'comment' to CNET about the ongoing login issues. I've been registered with CNET and ZDNet for years, and it seems like nearly every time I go to log in something like this happens. They don't screw up my email
address though, I get everything I've signed up for.

After I finished sending the support comment, it presented me with a page that went something like this; 'We think you requested information on Limewire...'.
I wish I'd taken a screenshot of it. It obviously parsed my comment and made a guess as to the content....badly. Nowhere did I mention Limewire or anything remotely similar.

In the second screen grab you see it shows all the different requests that "NoScript" detected.
For those who don't know about it NoScript is a Firefox 'extension' that blocks Java scripting in web pages until I 'allow' it. It's perhaps the most valuable add-on available and protects me from malicious scripting exploits.
Everyone should use it unless you're a security freak and are using another method.
The author Giorgio Maone is to be congratulated and deserves all the donations we can send!
------------------------------------
Now back to CNET, I don't know what causes this/these issues, I'm thinking that it might have something to do with all the different scripts running on their pages, and all the different browsers and combinations of security ware and add-ons people use. But it's not like I'm using an obscure browser or shouldn't be using an excellent security extension like NoScript.
Obviously something is screwed up, and usually the more things you have going on inside a web page, the better the chance for conflicts.
As an end-user, I don't care. All I want is a web page that works. And guess what happens if an end-user has trouble every time they try to log in? -- Adios until you get it straight.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, But...

2007-11-22T06:56:00.000-05:00

But, remember the indigenous peoples who don't share the same feelings. Their experience was entirely different from the English settlers. For one group it was the beginning, the other the beginning of the end.

I have mixed feelings about the day as my family was to follow these pilgrims path in 1630 when the Winthrop Fleet brought them to the shores of Massachusetts. I hate to think that Daggetts or Purintons (or any settlers for that matter) were in any part responsible for the downfall and destruction of the local tribes' way of life. Of course they were, in the most basic sense by being part of a group of people who thought that they had a right to 'settle' on someone else's land. I'd like to think that they were at least cognizant of that fact, and were possibly ones who at least tried to have a mutually beneficial relationship.

These days those issues aren't what most people think about on Thanksgiving day. Come to think of it, on the original Thanksgiving most were thinking of themselves and the fortunes of their group and little of the people whose lives and lands they would eventually dispossess.

This Thanksgiving while we are giving thanks for family and friends, the bountiful feast, and the fellowship of the day, it would be good to give some thought to those whose lives were irrevocably changed by our forefathers. I certainly will.

The News From A True Citizen Journalist In Iraq

2007-11-12T15:34:00.000-05:00

When I hear talking heads commenting on how the surge is working, and how the media isn't covering any of the good news from 'Eye-rack' (what the hell is so hard to pronounce?), my head wants to explode in frustration. So desperate to be vindicated in some way for their support of this devastating war, yet unable to produce any tangible (and believable) evidence themselves, they continue to live in a bubble of denial.

I wonder how they'd feel if they had to live in Iraq (outside the Green Zone), or if they were the manager of this clinic cited in a book by Dahr Jamail called "Beyond the Green Zone - Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq" that I just read about over at Firedoglake:

"The boxes of medical supplies we brought into the clinic were torn open immediately by desperate doctors. A woman entered, slapping her chest and face, and wailing as her husband carried in the dying body of her little boy. Blood was trickling off one of his arms, which dangled out of his father’s arms. Thus began my witnessing of an endless stream of women and children who had been shot by the U.S. soldiers and were now being raced into the dirty clinic, the cars speeding over the curb out front, and weeping family members carriying in their wounded."

"Standing near the ambulance in frustration, Maki [the manager of the clinic] told us, They (U.S. soldiers) shot the ambulance and they shot the driver after they checked his car, and knew he was carrying nothing. Then they shot him. And then they shot the ambulance. And now I have no ambulance to evacuate more than twenty wounded people.[...]"

Gee, I didn't hear about this on the news either.

Those have to be some thick bubbles these people are hiding in.

Lets make two lists, one with the 'good' news, the other with the bad. If you survive to complete the first part you'll already have a jump on the second.

And a large part of it depends on your perspective. How much good news do you have to report if you're one of the 2+ million displaced Iraqis? Probably more than if you're still living in Baghdad. How much good news do you think Maki has to report?

It seems that the only ones reporting "good news" are the officers who still support Bush, or the ones that know from experience that anything other than good news will put you on the fast track to "retirement". Oh, and Fox'ers.

More Ineptitude On Bush's Watch

2007-11-11T20:04:00.000-05:00

I just finished the New York Times article "Death of Spy Satellite Program".

I wonder how many billions of dollars have been wasted due to the lack of oversight, mis-management, and corruption in the past seven years of George Bush (and Republican domination). At least in this case they know how much was lost, but between Katrina and Iraq there are billions completely unaccounted for.

Bush Opts For Time Off Rather Than Honor Veterans

2007-11-11T17:37:00.000-05:00

I'm not surprised that president Bush is down in Texas spending most of the day at his ranch on a day that America honors it veterans. Despite his brief appearance at a Veterans' Day speech in Waco Texas, he plans to veto $3.5 billion for veteran's benefits Democrats had to insert into the latest defense appropriations bill.

When it comes to honoring military veterans all he gives them is lip service, but today he's barely making the effort to do that. It seems that he thinks of them as a great backdrop for a speech, or as fodder in his neocon approach to international relations, but not enough to spend a whole day honoring them publicly.

As our military is currently overstretched, overworked, underpaid, and under-rested, he's well rested, under worked, and overpaid.
Bush is not even trying to appear interested in the welfare or the sacrifices of those who served our nation.

If Bush wants to truly honor our veterans he should start by keeping them out of unnecessary wars, providing them with adequate equipment when deployed, giving them the required time between deployments, and taking care of (and fully funding) all their medical/psychological needs.

To me this says about all you need to know about what George Bush thinks of those who wear the military uniform (and actually serve).

Tough Questioning From Tim Russert. Too Bad It's To The Wrong man

2007-10-28T10:51:00.000-04:00

Tim Russert is interviewing Presidential candidate Chris Dodd on Meet the Press and he's asking him "Do you believe the troops have died in vain?". After slightly dodging the question by giving the 'political' answer, Russert again pressed him "But answer that question, all that loss for what, what did they die for?".

As soon as I heard that question, and how forcefully it was asked my thoughts shot back to Russert's numerous sessions with Vice President Cheney. I seem to recall those were mostly congenial affairs with Tim smiling and avoiding the tough questioning like I'm hearing today.
Why won't he ask the man most responsible for the war and it's thousands of dead the same damn question? And in the same tone.

Sure, Russert framed the question referring to a quote Dodd made the other day, "All that loss, for what?",which is an excellent question that should be honestly answered by Cheney and President Bush, but what stopped Russert from asking Cheney that same question when he's had the chance? He's had Cheney on his show multiple times since the beginning of the "war".

And if/when Cheney gives him the same 'political' reply only in a much more sanctimonious way as he does so well, would Mr. Russert pursue an answer in the same way? We would hope so, but I seriously doubt it. Maybe Russert is afraid that Cheney would somehow choke him with his mind.

If you think about it, that could be closer to the truth than you know.

Mika Brzezinski's at it again on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

2007-10-26T12:22:00.000-04:00

Mika Brzezinski's at it again on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", spreading FUD and assisting the administration and the terrorists with her coverage of shoes found with blasting caps in the hollowed out heels. What she fails to also mention which would add a little bit of context to the viewer's understanding of the issue are the news reports citing a report that states airport screeners "failed to spot 70% of the knives, 30% of the guns and 60% of the dummy explosives carried by secret investigators in the months after September 11."

This recent catch, despite how it was hyped, is nothing new and barely 'news'. I'm trying to figure out if it was 'filler' for the show, TV 'hype', or intentional right-wing FUD. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but either way you slice it the story was poorly done. News should be about getting stories to the viewers with little to no personal bias evident, putting the issue in the correct context, and providing the basic who - where - when - why - and how of the story. Even those basics are woefully missing from so much of the 'news' we see these days in the main stream media.

Newspapers and online news sites do a much better job of covering these basics but there's no good reason that twenty four hour news channels can't do the same if they chose to. I don't want to hear the same old excuse that blames the attention span of the 'average viewer'. That might be partially true, but only because they've been trained that way by the very same institutions that use this as an excuse.

News shouldn't be presented the same way advertising is. Maybe the marketing industry's techniques have been co-opted by the big media owners for news coverage, filtering down to the producers over time but the end result is a shorter attention span of the average viewer and diminishing the end product, which should be news that educates the viewer rather than just entertaining them or lazily parroting the talking points the White House sends out.

It has contributed to the 'dumbing-down' of viewers and to a certain extent contributed to our country being misled into supporting the Iraq quagmire.

[Edited for clarity on 10/27/07 1:15 PM]

Impending War with Iran - What The White House Doesn't Want You To Know

2007-10-25T11:51:00.000-04:00

I just came across this article over at Crooks and Liars. If you haven't already read about this you need to and so do your friends. Please pass it around.

Few labs can test 'dirty bomb' exposure - Yahoo! News

2007-10-25T08:53:00.001-04:00

The way this administration talks you'd think they were on top of things like this, but unfortunately that's all it is -- talk. Just a superficial sugar coating (that's what the main stream media "reports"), with a dank dangerous filling. (The following is a clip from the article with a link to the full story below) - TRD

By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The U.S. has a shortage of laboratories to test the thousands of people who might be exposed to radiation if a "dirty bomb" detonated in a major city, according to a recent congressional investigation.

The federal government established 15 disaster scenarios for federal, state and local officials to plan for, including one in which a dirty bomb goes off in a major downtown area and potentially exposes 100,000 people to radioactive materials.

A dirty bomb would contain some radioactive material that could cause contamination over a limited area but not create actual nuclear explosions. Should this happen in real life, the nation would not be able to quickly conduct tests for these people, because there are few labs capable of doing so in the country; and the tests available only address six of the 13 radiological isotopes that would likely be used in a dirty bomb, according to the report prepared for the House Committee on Science and Technology. Instead, it would take four years to complete all these tests, according to the report to be released Thursday.

"I had hoped since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that our government had smart people lying awake at 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to think through everything that terrorists could be dreaming of, every kind of attack they could be dreaming of, and trying to think of ways to prevent it and to respond to it if it does happen," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C. "Learning how poorly prepared we are for a dirty bomb, a radiological attack, makes me think that that's not happened."

Miller is chairman of the subcommittee holding a hearing on the report's findings.

The report acknowledges that this type of dirty-bomb scenario would probably not cause massive casualties, but Miller said four years is too long to wait for results of whether people are contaminated.

"I can't imagine a parent, who is told that their child can be tested for cesium in two-and-a-half more years, is going to be reassured to hear that their child probably won't die," Miller said.

- Article continues... (follow link below)

Source: Few labs can test 'dirty bomb' exposure - Yahoo! News