Saturday, July 14, 2007


Looks like this guy might have wished for more than he could handle.
It happens, quite often. We think we know what would satisfy us, make us happy, give us a boost "up".
Now, don't get me wrong. I sympathise with her having lost a son in Iraq.
I sympathize (with righteous indignation), with her when the President of the United States failed to show compassion toward her mental anguish. She is a distraught woman with a genuine complaint that Mr. President Bush should have shown more sympathy toward. But it seems he is not cut from the same stuff that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents were. He simply refused to see her. Crass and unfeeling? Yes, indeed. Not the most intelligent and compassionate thing he could have done? You bet it wasn't.
But Ms. Sheehan is now threatening Nancy Pelosi. Threatening to run for Congress against her in order to start impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president.
Now, I have no way of knowing if Ms. Sheehan has had real political advice about her threat. After all, is an inexperienced housewife ready to take on such a responsibility? And how will she raise the money needed and who will guide her in a campaign? Not the Democratic Party. They have a sitting member of the House in that office. Who would write her speeches? What can she offer the voter other than a single issue?
If Ms. Pelosi knuckled under to Ms. Sheehan's demands to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and they were forced out of office, then she would become president. Oh, my.
And just for the sake of argument, if Ms. Sheehan was successful, if she started an impeachment action against the two most powerful men in the U.S. and was successful who would become President?
Right. The Speaker of the House. And that would then not be Ms. Pelosi, nor Ms. Sheehan. It would be someone else from the Democratic Party. And it would happen after the presidential election.
As the genie said: "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."
I would not wager any of your money, let alone my own, on Ms. Sheehan being elected. Surely she is smart enough to know this. So what's her point? Publicity? From the events surrounding the unhappy event of her son's death? I certainly hope not.
Motivation is a sometimes difficult path to analyze. I'll leave that for smarter heads. It's a tricky thing.
I do know that threatening a sitting politician can be a dangerous thing for any cause one espouses.
It is just that, although I am anti Geo. W. Bush and Dick Cheney (I don't know Dick), I'm not sure I would like Nancy Pelosi as President, not even for the remainder of this term.
The header links to a Republican web site. See? I can be balanced and objective. Maybe I should run.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


Someone seems to be getting screwed here.
At first I thought it was the teacher and principal. Then I thought it was the citizens of Albuquerque. Then I thought it might be other School Board members.
Now, it's entirely possible that all of the above were victims.
But the truly hard hit victims are the uneducated students sent out in the world without a real high school education. But with a diploma.
Just before graduation time, it seems that a former Albuquerque Public Schools board member, Miguel Acosta, and/or his wife, contacted Superintendent of Schools Elizabeth Everitt. They had found out that their son was not to be graduated because he hadn't completed his required English course. Ms. Everitt contacted the teacher and the principal. Apparently she let them know that they would, indeed, give the boy a D, not an F (parenthetically, I thought a "D" was a failing grade). Both the teacher and the principal said no, the kid failed. They would not change his grade. So the school board member had a resolution (or whatever) passed and the kid got his "D" and received his diploma.
There are a lot of parents, whose kids had failed courses and had not received their diplomas with their friends, who are mighty upset about what they see as favoritism. And they are, of course, right.
Well, The Albuquerque Journal published an article about it. Wow. There was outrage throughout the school district and the State Epartment of Education reviewed the event. (Should have said "is reviewing".)
This in-fighting goes on and on, but no one involved seems to see who the real losers are.
In my day (when the Red Sea was still in one piece) if you failed to get the required credits, you did not graduate.
As I see it, the losers are the children of Albuquerque. Being sent out into a wild wooly America without even a proper high school education condemns one into menial, low paying and disliked jobs. These kids will fail, whether their parents can afford to send them to university or not. Without a solid grounding in the basics the work load will overwhelm them. There will always being a few anecdotes about an individual here or there (Bill Gates comes to mind), but overall they will become more of the disenchanted, more of the dissatisfied, more of those who see crime as a solution to their problems.

Monday, July 9, 2007


U.S. citizen passport rules postponed blares the headline. The problem looks similar to the cat's.
The U.S. government has postponed the requirement for returning U.S. citizens to show a passport until at least next summer.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the change Wednesday in Washington and said the Jan. 1, 2008, deadline was being extended, The Washington Post reported.
Two weeks ago, the State Department said there was a backlog of 3 million passport applications and some congressional members criticized administration's rush.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., whose district includes the border city of Buffalo, N.Y., called the proposal "premature" and "not grounded in reality." Under existing rules, U.S. travelers returning from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean can make a verbal declaration of citizenship and show a wide number of photo identification items, which Chertoff criticized. "Those who believe we should continue to allow 8,000 documents and oral declarations are playing with fire," he said. "They are gambling with the security of this country."
Well, duh Mike. Let me see if this CBS poll will help you understand:
Direction of the Country Wrong track 75% Right direction 19% There's also rising concern about America's standing in the world. Seven in 10 Americans say the United States is not respected around the world today. More than half say President Bush's foreign policy has made world leaders less likely to cooperate with the U.S.; just 10 percent say he's made foreign leaders more agreeable.
Or maybe this: I'm one of the "old guard" who, in my youth, used to visit Canada and Mexico regularly and enjoyed the then hospitality of both countries. I'm also an honorably discharged vet (Korean War) who absolutely resents the very idea that our government wants to tax us all some more by requiring that $100+ passports be carried by legal citizens. I understand the argument that this might protect us from terrorists, but I don't buy that. With all the capabilities of creating forged documents today, it would seem to be a simple matter for these people to supply the overworked state department with clever and honest looking documentation. In other words, the idea seems to be good, but in the cold light of reason and fact, it fails the acid test miserably."
Personal message: moose, be sure to click on the header.


Waaaa. Tell me it isn't true. A Race to the Bottom - Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies 09/06/2007This report has been prepared by Privacy International following a six-month investigation into the privacy practices of key Internet based companies. AOL, Apple, Facebook, Hi5,, Windows Live Space, and Yahoo! are identified as companies with policies and techniques that pose substantial threats to privacy, while Google is is said to be "hostile to privacy'". So much for trusting companies on the internet. Whatever happened to the companies that used to earn your trust by being honest?


The people of Tulsa (and I expect many other cities) are upset. It seems they have a right to be. So do all Americans. (Click the header for details.)
Tulsa has a population of just under 400,000. There's an estimate (don't forget, estimate = guess) that there are now more than 50,000 illegal aliens in that city. That's an increase of support for a new non-English speaking 12-13% of the population. Bang. Just like that. This population swelling is being called a "silent invasion" by one broadcaster.
Now, that kind of drain on a city's resources can cause havoc. Especially if the increase does not coincide with a corresponding increase in city income. And apparently it has not. The city can no longer supply adequate safety, medical care, street maintenance, garbage pickup, and all the myriad of neccessary things we take for granted.
Even in an established area of hispanics (Albuquerque and Santa Fe both have long standing, mainly Mexican and Indian, areas. We call them "Old Town"). But in Tulsa's equivalent, "Plaza Santa Cecilia", the local shops report their business is down by 40%. One shop keeper said: "Everyone is staying home because of this immigration stuff." That sounds like the "gringos" are not continuing their normal shopping habits. (Wild Thing and I regularly go to Old Town for shopping and food. And we always take our guests there.)
How long any business that loses that big a percentage of sales can keep their doors open depends on how much money they have in the bank and how soon something is done to help them.
I've read about the internment of American citizens of Japanese heritage during World War II, and I feel it was reprehensible. Yeah, they caught a few illegal spies, but the overwhelming number of people interned were loyal Americans. I certainly do not expect that to be repeated for any group.
A Tulsa professor of Political Scence, Gary Rutledge, found out that an illegal who smashed into his truck, had no license, no insurance, would at most be fined and maybe given a short jail term (one month, maximum). Then he'd be back on the streets. The cops, according to Rutledge, couldn't find any filed accident report.
This came as big shock to Gary. He and his insurance company would have to make the repairs at their cost.
Along these lines, a good friend of ours was clipped by an illegal (maybe a year ago) and the cop didn't even bother to cite him for no license and no insurance. Albuquerque has a city ordinance requiring that any uninsured vehicle be towed to a city yard and placed in storage until the uninsured motorist proves to a court that he/she has insurance. Que sera, sera.
The Tulsa school system has taken a hit, too. Nilda Reyes, a honcho in the school system said there are more than six thousand children in "remedial" English classes. And that happened in five years. You need a number of new schools, equipment, support staff and teachers for that many kids.
"The school district also is making plans to expand remedial English teaching in higher grades, and is offering Spanish courses to teachers and looking to hire additional bilingual staff."
I'm sure the illegals appreciate this sort of thing. Now maybe they, themselves, will help stop the gang ridden violence that has become a major event in the daily life of Tulsans. (It is also a fact of life here in Albuquerque.)
There are accusations that Tulsa has become a "sanctuary city" for illegals. I wonder what that makes all New Mexican cities? And Arizonans? And Texans? And Coloradoans? And (fill in the blank)?
A guy with a radio show talk show in Tulsa advocates an immediate moratorium on immigration, a clamp down on the border and tough rules that hold employers responsible for checking immigration status. Good luck, sir.
It's nasty and it's only going to get nastier if the Feds don't wake up and do something the vast majority of American people want them to do. This is not Iraq nor Afghanistan. We really don't want armed posses in our streets. We don't want to wake up in the morning with the sound of gunfire. We don't want to go to bed seeing the flames from burning buildings.
What we want is to see some constructive and protective actions from this silent invasion.
Help us Congress.


Oklahoma is saying no. And backing it up with teeth in their laws.

Seems the people are not happy with illegal aliens moving into their state and creating havoc and costing them mucho dinero. Their house, senate and Governor agree with them too. And they are telling the businesses there that the owners are reponsible for making sure that anyone working for them has not used illegal identification to get the job.

It's too bad that push has come to shove, but it's now time for all our states to enact similar laws. Something to the effect of "When, in the course of human events...."

The failure of Washington to protect its own people from this silent invasion has left the problem (and it is, really, a national problem) in our hands alone.

I think that one of the things that bothers me the most are the idiotic statements emanating from a part of the anatomy I'd rather not get involved with. It's being suggested that these Illegal aliens have some kind of rights under our laws. That seems to me to be saying that if I am guilty of breaking a law I have a right to have my guilt exonerated by someone's opinion. And made into something legal and sacrosanct.

What do you suppose Mexico would say if I murdered a citizen in Mexico? Would they grant me citizenship, freedom to do what I wanted to in their country and absolution from the crime?

Could I displace a Mexican worker? Would they give my kids free schooling (in English) and see to it that we got subsidized housing? And a pension? And food on our tables? Just because I had successfully crossed the border?

The point is this: the words acceptance and amnesty should never be used where crimes against a nation are committed. Not if we are to continue as a nation of laws, not men.

Lou Dobbs has a lot to say on this subject:

There's more to see by clicking on the header.

Sunday, July 8, 2007


Is it possible? Is Google locking out honest users? I dunno. I do know that at one stage they sent me an email stating that I had a temporary suspension 'cause they were worried I was a spammer. I typed in the required words and numbers and they sent me a letter thanking me and approving my ability to use Blogger. Somehow, I think they were a form letters sent willy nilly to bloggers. I do not believe they are a crooked house, but the pic was too good to just throw away. It's real, I was told. There is such a house. I don't know where but my correspondent swore it was true. Good enough for me. I usually only investigate hoaxes and politicians. You can follow this up by the click in the header. Analyst's Diary GoogleBlock Magnus June 15, 2007 11:44 GMT A few days ago the Inquirer published a (sic) interesting little article talking about how Google hadn't returned the search results he wanted, but instead told him his computer might be infected with a malicious program. And today one of our clients got caught the same way – the ubiquitous search engine was displaying the same error message to lots of the company's staff. I'm interested in why this happened. It's not very difficult to find a possible answer: a lot of spammers use Google to find the emails of potential victims and automate this task by using little scripts which may be run from infected machines. So Google can implement a temporary block which is lifted when the user correctly responds to Google's captcha by entering the letters and numbers shown, proving that s/he is not a spambot. We've managed to reproduce the suspicious behaviour that can get a human user getting locked out of Google. And once the user's been locked out, his/ her IP address get's blacklisted. This can be a problem if the user is coming in via a proxy server – it will be the proxy that will be seen as the attacker, and the proxy that gets blocked. Which means that all the users coming in via the same proxy will also be subject to the same restrictions, until someone correctly solves the captcha. It would of course be helpful if the Google warning clearly stated that it could be the proxy, rather than the user's computer, which is suspected of being a bot. We've suggested this to Google, and we'll let you know their response. Of course, it might not be a false alarm at all - there might be an infected computer on your network, and Google raising the red flag could be the first sign of infection. But even though Google's search capability may be awesome, a dedicated antivirus program is still going to be the most reliable way of catching malicious programs.


I thought this picture was appropriate for some reason.
I was sent this article and thought it worthy to be shown here and ask for comments. Many blogs have the mixed up letters and numbers to eliminate spam, many require editorial approval from the blog owner and some do not even have a place to make comments.
But is this enough? Do the ladies (bless 'em) have these kind of problems? If yes, how do they (you) deal with it? Our do they adopt Michelle Malkin's attitude? The bloggers I have "met" seem to be the kind of gentle souls who would never even think of doing this kind of thing.
"Negative comments, hurtful words and even threats are the daily routine for those in the blogging community; most writers might say they would rather receive negative feedback than not receive any feedback at all. However, women bloggers have raised their voices in protest of threatening or vulgar comments they receive to their writing and want codes of conduct initiated to protect themselves. "The Washington Times has reported that many women bloggers are intimidated by violently or sexually explicit comments left in response to their writing. Joan Walsh, a female editor-in-chief of the publication Salon, said, 'it's been hard to ignore that the criticisms of women writers are much more brutal and vicious than those about men.' "Many feel the disturbing comments are made simply because their owners can maintain anonymity; even today blogs do not require users to login or register with the site. "One particular author, Kathy Sierra, who once ran a Top 100 blog by Technorati's criteria said, 'I have cancelled all speaking engagements…I am afraid to leave my yard…I will never feel the same…I will never be the same.' "Sierra wrote this in response to comments that indicated certain users wanted to perform sexual acts on her and then kill her in an explicitly violent manner. "As it stands, there are many women in academia and writing that feel intimidated by threatening comments and violent feedback. A group known as BlogHer has offered support for women who are feeling threatened by the malicious internet community. "That being said, allow me to say this: women are not the only people being targeted by violent comments or otherwise, and the problem was never largely addressed before it became a 'female' issue. "If, perhaps, women were the only users being targeted, it might be justified to 'sexify' the issue. However, the media is directly responsible for making this a sex-related issue, when in fact innapropriate comments infest the blogging world for both men and women. "Furthermore, not all women feel that the negative comments need be taken seriously. Michelle Malkin, a culture and politics blogger, says she has received plenty of comments regarding,'torture, rape, murder' of her and her loved ones. She said, 'Keep blogging. Don't cut and run.' "If female writers want to be effective against the onslaught of offensive comments, the number one way to do so isn't to make it a public issue. Have you ever let on to a small child that something they do bothers you? I can guarantee you, they will perform that act all the more because they know it will irritate you. "If women are to be considered equals to men in every regard (as they should), they must not isolate themselves as separate from men in the day to day abuse internet writers receive. Most importantly, they cannot stop blogging simply due to threats they feel they are receiving due to their sex. "This is not to say I don't feel that innapropriate comments and their owners need to be dealt with; they do. However, by sexually isolating women in this issue, the focus is taken away from the larger problem of moderating baseless commentary and is placed on gender issues. If the blogging community as a whole faces the very real problem of threatening or violent commentary, it can be dealt with in an effective manner."
There's more. Click on the header.