Friday, July 18, 2008

Revision3 and Media Defender

Here's a old one (from May) that seems to have been forgotten.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, Media Defender used "stealth tactics" to break Bit Torrent in an attempt to prevent the downloading of copyrighted materials.

Revision3 uses Bit Torrent to distribute their shows.  Through a configuration error, one of their servers had been commandeered and was being used to illegally distribute copyrighted materials.

Instead of getting a head's up, an email, or a cease and desist letter from Media Defender, Media Defender used a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service Attack.)  For the record, a DDoS is illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 

Let me be clear:  instead of doing the responsible thing, Media Defender (a subsidiary of Artists Direct) did what hackers do.  They DDoS'd Revision3.

This reminds me of the "Sony Rootkit" debacle.  Google that term and you'll see what I mean.  SonyBMG decided that their DRM (digital rights management) should include a rootkit.  What makes it worse is that the rootkit wasn't written well to begin with and it took less than a week for a trojan to exploit it.

Media Defender, apparently, doesn't care about the responsible thing.  Otherwise, why would they use hacker tactics?  Why not do the responsible thing and send a cease and desist letter?  Why not a certified letter?  Why not a phone call from your attorneys?  Why not even a flocking email?!?

How dare you?!?

Adam Clarke

I'm not ashamed of Adam Clarke.  I need to say that right here.  What I AM ashamed of is what happened.  Also, I do need to point out that probably a few of those who did NOT stop might have had medical conditions which would have made it impossible for them to assist.  I am in no way blaming these people. 

But also for the record, Mr. Adam Clarke had had a hip replacement before this incident.  Yet he was the only one who helped.  Here's what happened:

My mother was listening to the Glenn Beck programme today, and Glenn brought up the situation with Mr. Clarke.  Here's what happened:  (I'm paraphrasing from Mr. Beck's comments.)

Mr. Clarke was going to pick Mr. Beck up for a show they were doing when the traffic slowed down suddenly.  Mr. Clarke looked (as many other drivers were) and noticed a man beating the crap out of a Police Officer.  (It wasn't clear if it was a local cop, a Sheriff's Deputy or a State Trooper.)

AT LEAST 20 people drove by ... and did nothing.  Mr. Clarke stopped his car, jumped out, and assisted the Officer in subduing the man.  The Officer thanked him, told him he didn't even have time to call the stop in before being set upon by the attacker, and that the attacker had nearly gotten his firearm "several times."

Mr. Clarke, Executive Producer of the Glenn Beck Programme, was the only one that did anything.  What I'm ashamed of is why was he the only person to stop.  Why didn't AT LEAST ONE of those other 20 or so stop and assist? 

Since the founding of our Nation, we've apparently gone from being willing to take up arms and die for our Freedom to ... being sheeple.  We've gone from being brave people to ... being cowards.  Mr. Clarke was the only one with the balls to do the right thing and assist the Officer who was in danger of losing the battle with the attacker, and possibly his life.

This Officer is, of course, getting paid.  The people that drove by aren't (at least, not for what the Officer does.)  That, however, is not the point.

I'm not getting paid to be a Police Officer, but if I notice a drunk driver on the Interstate, I will inform them.  I'm not getting paid to be a Police Officer, but if I notice somebody in distress, I will assist them.  I'm not getting paid to be a Police Officer but you can be assured that had I seen that incident, I would have stopped to assist the Officer. 

Why then, did nobody else?  That is what I'm ashamed of.  Too many people who do nothing. 

At this point, I'm sure somebody's going to comment on this (if not email me) and tell me about their rights.  I'm well aware that people have rights, but everybody seems to have forgotten that with those rights come ... responsiblities.  Now there's a Politically Incorrect word.  God Forbid we should be responsible Citizens!  God Forbid we should assist those Officers who have sworn their lives to keep us safe.

Shame on us.  Of course, those people that didn't stop are probably the same people that do 100 mph on the Outerbelt where the speed limit is 65.  (Yes, my local State Troopers did a "concentrated-enforcement initiative" on the Outerbelt and nailed people doing 85, 90, even over 100 mph.  The speed limit is 65.)  I'm willing to bet that more than a few of the people who got tickets are complaining that they have a right to drive on the roadway (you don't, by the way.  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  And even if it were a right, you don't have the right to break the speed limit.  But I digress.) 

For Mr. Adam Clarke, I join that Officer in thanking you.  You did what was brave and what was right.

For everybody else ... grow a pair already.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

FTC Complaint

Well, I just filled out a complaint with the FTC about Juan McAmnesty's unwanted emails.  Yes, I did sign up for them to begin with, and have now been trying to remove myself for the past FIVE months.

Apparently, Mr. McAmnesty doesn't know how to read English (maybe I really should have asked in Spanish.)

But I just filed a complaint with the FTC, and I'm certain that they'll 1) Think it's a joke, and then 2) do nothing.

They are part of the government, after all.  I got my complaint number and all that stuff about Thank you for your complaint ... blah, blah, blah. 

I didn't want to do that.  I asked Mr. McAmnesty's campaign a total of EIGHT times to be unsubscribed.  This included emails to his campaign and the unsubscribe page on his website.  EIGHT TIMES he was asked.  EIGHT TIMES he did nothing.

Maybe I should have asked in Spanish ... he doesn't seem to be understanding English.

Maybe...just maybe the FTC will ... oh, I don't know ... enforce the CAN-SPAM Act?  I just want the emails to stop.  That's it. 

The next time, knowing that there will be one (since McAmnesty's campaign doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word 'stop',) I'll ask my attorney to assist me. 

I've already added Mr. McAmnesty's campaign to AOL's spam filters.  But today's email was the final straw.  I can't vote for Mr. McAmnesty, I've said that here before.  I can't vote for BHO, either.

I think I'll write in "Mickey Mouse."  The sad part is that he'd probably do a better job.

Juan McAmnesty

A few months ago, and on another screen name, I signed up for Juan McAmnesty's email alerts.  It was the only way I could get access to his site to tell him what a joke I consider him (MY OPINION) to be.

I can't unsubcribe.  I've tried.  Every time, I get an error.  I've reported Juan to the FBI and the FTC, both of which I expect to sit on their asses and do ... nothing. 

It's what I've come to expect from the government. 

But Juan's campaign is now in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, and I fully expect the FBI and the FTC to ... sit on their asses and do nothing.  Perhaps, as I expect from the corrupted politicians who put them there, they'll busy themselves telling each other how to wipe (Use an up and down motion) and to be clean (Now be sure to wash your hands.  You might want to use soap this time, too.)

And to think I actually let myself believe (for all of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000028 seconds) all the politician's brave noises about "change." 

They, meaning BHO and JM, should change their slogans to "I'm an American politician, and I need your vote.  So I'm going to lie to you, get your vote, and then screw you over.  Change?  Sorry, no real change here."

And Mr. McAmnesty, will you please TAKE ME OFF YOUR FLOCKING EMAIL LIST? 

Or do I need to ask in Spanish?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Yet Another Driving Entry

It's been quite a while since my last driving entry ::huge grin:: but I have to comment on something that happened.

I really dislike (with a passion) tail-gaters.  I do.  In the state in which I live, you're supposed to give one car-length of distance between you and the vehicle ahead of you per each 10 mph of speed.  So if you're going 35mph, you should give three-and-a-half car lengths of distance.  If you're going 45, it would be 4.5.  If you're going 65, it would be 6.5. 

Today, a woman (you'll find out later how I know it was a woman) was tail-gating me so close that I coudn't see her headlamps.  I gave a few brake-checks, but she didn't get the idea. 

Then, we came to a stoplight.  I went into the straight and right-turn lane, and she went into the left turn lane only.  The light was red.  This is a small intersection, so the Civil Engineers who designed it put the white line (that you're supposed to stop behind) behind the 'straight' lane.  They do that so if any tractor-trailers, motorhomes, campers, RV's, bus's, etcetera, will be able to turn left without crunching a car.

Said woman pulled up next to me ... way over the white line.  As misfortune would have it, a semi was trying to turn left onto our road.  He hit the air horn, but she didn't move.  I hit my horn and motioned to her to roll her window down.

She did.  I pointed at the big rig and said "Ma'am, he needs you to back up so he can turn, please.  That's what that white line back there was for."

At that point, I got such a nasty look that I'm surprised I didn't have heart failure on the spot.  It was one of those looks.  She backed up, the semi turned ... and the driver gave her one of those salutes.  You know ... the finger.

I've written about bad drivers before, but this was the SECOND TIME IN THREE DAYS that a situation like this happened. 

Folks, if you have a white line in the road at a stoplight or stopsign, it's there for a reason.  It's because the Civil Engineer who designed the intersection put it there so that all vehicles could turn.  Please stay behind them. 

Monday, July 14, 2008

Poor Joseph Liberman

First, a link to the article I'll be referencing:

"Joseph Lieberman, the lapsed Democrat from Connecticut, strolled into the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats, unaccompanied by a food taster."

That's the first sentence of the article, but it says quite a bit.  He's a "lapsed" Democrat (which means he doesn't fall into lock-step with the party's ideals.)  Second, he didn't have a food-taster.  That was, I suspect, an attempt to inject humour into the article, but it's actually quite telling, given the next sentence. 

Here it is:  "He greeted his colleagues, including some who felt he should not have been there last Tuesday." (emphasis added)

Wow.  So now things are so polarized in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption that you need to fall into lock-step with your colleagues?!? 

If Mr. Lieberman is that dis-liked because he's out of favour (called out of step by some,) can you imagine what the reaction to my showing up in DC again would be like?  I'd be dead before my body hit the ground.

Before anybody says anything, there are those on the other side of the fence who are the same way.  If you disagree with what some Republicans are saying, you're on their shyte-list too.  (This probably explains why I was never invited back to the White House Dinner.)  I've p*ssed off so many on both sides that I fully expect if I showed up in DC again, I would be dead before my body hit the ground.  (Assuming I made it that far.  I'd probably be stopped by agents from a three-letter government agency.  "I'm sorry, Sir, but we can't let you past this point.  It's for your own safety.  Not to mention what would happen to us if we let you through.")

Sadly, then, the answer to the hypothetical question of whether or not Mr. Lieberman actually needed a food-taster ... is apparently yes. 

And again, sadly, this confirms that things are so polarized there that if you disagree with what your colleagues are saying that you can't even sit down and eat with them.  Remember, a few of them didn't want Mr. Lieberman there.  This is the truly sad state of American politics.

Whatever happened to listening to the other side's viewpoints in a calm and rational matter?  Whatever happened to "Problems won't be solved without discussing them in depth and passion.  Let's not make some joke of the Bill of Rights.  Let's make so certain that we listen to all viewpoints, especially those with which we strongly disagree."  You might not have been alive when Sen. Al Simpson said that to Sen. Ted Kennedy, but I was.  It was in the early 1980's.  (I think it was in 1983, but I could be wrong on this.  For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was 1983.)

So....since 1983 we've gone from "Let's make so certain that we listen to all viewpoints, especially those with which we strongly disagree," to needing a food-taster.  We've gone from discussing things in depth and passion ... to not being able to sit down with one's colleagues because their views on issues differ.

The politician$ are that sad.  And that, my friends, is a very sad place to be.  If you did need any more proof that things in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption are indeed in a sad and sorry state, there you are. 

In 25 years we've gone from discussing things in depth and passion ... to needing food-tasters.

We've gone from people on both sides praying for a sick or dying person on the other side of the divide ... to praying that they die.

We've devolved.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Bob Brinker Sez...

Today, as I was driving my parents home from dinner we were listening to Bob Brinker on the radio.  It was his programme "Money Talk."  He was on because our professional baseball team wasn't losing ... er ... PLAYING.  Yeah.  They weren't PLAYING.

To be fair, Mr. Brinker does have his detractors.  He also has his followers.  But today I'm not going to be commenting on his financial advice because, frankly, I'm not as versed in financial matters as he is.  I'll be straight up and honest about that.  I'm not as versed as he is.

But he made a few comments today in his programme that I wanted to comment on.  He commented on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke being called to Wa$hington to answer questions from $enator$.  These elected officials are quite proud of themselves and, in my opinion, are too interested in getting re-elected than in actually serving the American people.  (Now there's a thought.  Serve the People instead of yourselves.  But I digress.) 

Mr. Brinker said that the average elected official doesn't really have that much of an understanding about how the market and the economy works.  And, he's right.  Frankly, an Andorian Sprit-Dancer with a Scrabble set and an Ouijia board could probably do a better job than the average American politician.  Mr. Bernanke will be called to the Di$trict of Corruption to answer questions from idiots who will be more interested in posturing and getting re-elected than in actually getting anything substantial done.  I've said it before and I'll say it again ... they've got one hand in the pork-barrel and the other up each other's rectums.  And sadly, in economic matters, they have as much understanding as your average brain-damaged cockroach. 

Mr. Brinker said that we needed to get off of foreign oil ... indeed off of oil completely.  ::DING::  That was one of those moments when you're listening to somebody and think "Duh."  But he's right.  We do import 12 million barrels of crude a day ... and that's a lot of our money going to governments and countries that aren't exactly friendly to us.  I've written that before, too. 

He said we need to switch to a more well-rounded source of energy, including nuclear.  This is where I'm going to disagree with him.  Not because it's dangerous (it is if handled incorrectly) and not because of the environmentalists (some years back, a misguided environmentalist pointed a bazooka at the Pheonix Breeder Reactor in France,) and not because of nuclear waste (of which, all the nuclear waste from all reactors since the first one went on line...all of that waste would fit inside a high school gymnasium.)  No, I'm more concerned about safety, the lack of oversight, and the threat from terrorists.

We know, from their own documents, that the 9/11 hijackers had the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant targetted, but decided against it in favour of the World Trade Centre.  Again, their own documents state this.  They don't name it by name, but it is the only nuclear plant in that geographic area.  2 and 2 makes 4.  Had that plane hit Indian Point, it would've taken out about 15 - 20 million people. 

Then, there's the lack of security (REAL security) at nuclear power plants.  Some years back, the NRC tested the security at a still-unnamed plant.  To test it, they encased an unloaded handgun in plastic and put it into a suitcase.  The goal was to see how far it would go.

They went all the way into the main control room ... with a gun.  (Again, it was unloaded and encased in plastic so nobody could have fired it.)  But they made it all the way to the control room with a gun.  This does not breed confidence. 

Just to make matters worse (and again according to the NRC documents) power plant workers at another unnammed plant were given the answers to a security and training test.  Given the answers?!?  Yup ... given the answers.

Mr. Brinker said we needed to use more alternative energy sources including solar and windpower.  Again, he's right.  But ... we're going to run into the environmentalists (again!) who are already complaining about windmills killing birds and about how humans are already using more than our share of solar power (!!!).  Don't believe me?  Google it. 

I won't deny that environmentalists have done good.  I cannot and will not deny that.  But a good percentage of them are far too radicalized and out on the fringe that they give the more moderate ones a bad name. 

Does anybody remember when some environmentalists spiked trees with railroad spikes so that the logger's chainsaws would jam?  Yes, there were injuries.  Yes, there were a few deaths.  "You can't kill that tree!  We'll kill you before we let you kill that tree!"

And then there are the wackos out there committing arson to car dealerships, to genetic researcher's homes ... and then there are the death threats.  No doubt, a few of the more militant (shit, I'm TIRED of them being called 'militant'.  Let's call them what they are ... eco-terrorists.  Or just terrorists.)  No doubt, a few of the more vocal eco-terrorists will now want me dead, too.  "How dare you speak out against us!  DIE!!!"  "How dare you decry our methods!  Don't you know that a tree is more important to us than you are?!?  DIE!!!  ...wait.  I already said that.  DAMN YOU AND STILL DIE!!!  Oh, to hell with him and just shoot him already.  We've got more houses to burn."

I know at this point that I'll have triggered several watch words that will cause this post to be analyzed by a three-letter government agency.  Hopefully, the agent(s) reading this gets a good laugh.  Hopefully, it'll make them think.

Hopefully, I've made you think as well.  We need to get off of oil, but we need to do it together.  This is, as Dr. Michio Kaku said, make or break.  Mr. Brinker said we need the "Manhattan Project" of energy projects, a phrase coined some years back by Dr. Peter Ward.  They're all three of them right.

We have some hard choices to make.  Drilling is, at best, a short-term solution.  We've got 25 - 30 years (a few estimates are now saying 35) of oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf ... and then we're right back where we started.

Why not get off of oil completely?  Remember those 12 million barrels we're buying each day?  Remember where most of the oil comes from?  We're giving unfriendly countries money with which to poison their people's minds against us. 

Unfortunately, since we now buy so many goods from China, we're also arming China.  We're paying for their coal-fired power plants ...and that'll be a topic I'll cover in detail as well (assuming I don't get questioned by a three-letter government agency first.)

Until then, thank you for reading.



Thursday, July 10, 2008

No, that's not me

I opened my mailbox about 30 minutes ago and got a mail that asked if I were the same "gregb1967" that posts on  I had no idea who this person was, so I did a little reading.  The answer, for the record, is no. 

I have no idea who this "gregb1967" is, although I can infer that he is a male, first name is Greg, last name begins with "B" and he was born sometime in 1967.  There all similarities appear to end.  In one of his postings, he wrote:  "The fact is that Mayo is a stupid punk thug who the NBA should make an example of."

Let's examine this:  Somebody named "Mayo" plays for the NBA, and this person writing thinks he is a "...stupid punk thug..." that the NBA should make an "...example of."  This might be true.  Frankly, I don't know since I don't know who "Mayo" is, what team he plays for or why this person thinks the NBA should make an example out of him.

But my point is this:  This particular "gregb1967" has presented his opinion as fact.  That's not what I do.  When I'm telling you my opinion, I'll tell you it's my opinion.  Simply search this journal and you'll find more than a few instances.  They're easy to spot, since they normally say somethink like "In my opinion" or "my opinion, I could be wrong," or words similar.  This clearly informs you that you're reading an opinion which may or may not be factual. 

Usually, but not always, I'll include a link to an article which I've cited in reference.  This lets you know that somebody else has said something that that I'm going to comment on it.  Sometimes, I'll add my opinion to this person's story.  Again, you'll always be made aware that it is my opinion. 

So for the person who sent me the email; thank you for the mail.  No, that person isn't me.  But it was a good question.

Thank you for asking and thank you for reading. :)

Oil Blackmail?

Gods.  I don't know if anybody reading this remembers the theory of "nuclear blackmail," which really isn't a theory as it turns out.  A link (you'll want to read this before you read the rest of this entry (please!)) is here:  You'll also want to read up (a bit) on "game theory."  Indeed, the book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" (John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern) is required reading for any game theorist.  (I'm not one ... for the record.)

How about ... oil blackmail?  "OPEC chief warns of 'unlimited' oil prices if Iran is attacked."

Their defence is that they can't make up for Iran's production.  Bollocks.  Utter bollocks.  They've got the United States by the testicles and they know it.  In this particular game, and make no mistake it is a game, most if not all of the actors are rational and therefore quite well aware of the consequences of their actions (or inactions.)

OPEC knows they can easily make up for Iran's production.  They know it.  All an outside observer has to do is study the production numbers to know that.  They also know they have the United States by the testicles and that we really don't want to pay higher petrol prices.  Is this, then, a form of blackmail?  Extortion?  Oil blackmail??

I'm not the only person to say these things.  Indeed, others before me have made very similar statements.  The politicians during the Arab Oil Embargo made their brave noises about "energy independence" and "alternative sources of energy" and then put their hands right back up the lobbyist's rectums.  Nothing got done. 

Now here we are again ... same problem.  Will anybody listen after this crisis is over? 

Probably not.


Well, we've all heard the term by now, or at least, most of us have.  "Fauxtography."  This refers to the practice of manipulating photos, changing the captions, or staging entire scenes for the benefit of a camera. 

There have been many instances of fauxtography.  Two links to it are here: (This LOOKS like Wikipedia, but isn't.)  Sure looks like it in format, though.  Just remember; it's NOT Wikipedia.

And a search of Wikipedia for the term "Fauxtography" returned this link:

Well, it's happened again.  Again.  From the NYT comes this caption: "In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many."  A link to it is here:

You might imagine that another firestorm might erupt over this one.  Frankly, I wouldn't blame anybody if it happened.  I'm tired of photos being doctored, arms, limbs, trees, utility poles, entire PEOPLE being removed or added.  I'm tired of smoke being added "for effect."  And then we have CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) doctoring a photo of the Toronto skyline to emphasis global warming.  A link is here:

Folks, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and yes, I've fallen for a few pranks in my time.  But for the CBC to "miss" this one?  Come on.  A second-grader with a bucket of paint and an Etch A Sketch could do a better job.  Even I'm not that stupid.

Here's a Wikipedia article about journalistic fraud.  Because even the "mainstream" media does it too.

Whatever happened to just reporting the news without distortion or concealment?  There is a place for opinions, yes.  The Op-ed pages.  Personal blogs (or journals!) can also be good places for opinions.

But if you're in the media business, you have a responsibility (God, now there's a Politically Incorrect word!!) to keep opinions out of the news, and confined to the Op-ed pages.  That's what they're there for.

Or am I the only one that remembers that?

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Partly Personal - Partly Political


Today, I took my father to a local drugstore after dinner.  We needed to pick a few things up for himself and my mother.  Going INTO the store, we were nearly run into by a young woman who was leaving.  Her name tag (her name and store name with held) indicated that she worked there, so she might've been on a smoking break.  In any event, she nearly ran into my father, didn't even say "excuse me" and kept talking on her cell phone.

As I've already stated several times, my father has inclusion body myositis and it's hard enough for him to walk on a completely level surface.  Add to that the fact that somebody nearly ran him down, and you can see how he'd have trouble keeping his balance.  He did keep his balance (thankfully ... with help), and in we went.

I didn't speak to the manager about it (who himself was on a phone!!) and we left.  But if this is the type of person they're hiring, I wonder how they're still in business.

So let's review:  self-absorbed young woman on cell phone who works at that store came out, nearly running my father over, as she was talking on her cell phone.  She doesn't stop, doesn't say "excuse me" and doesn't move to assist as my father tries to keep his balance (which, again, he THANKFULLY did.)

Little Manager Boy on duty, who himself is on the phone, doesn't even greet us as we pass him.

Had this been at Wal-Mart ... well.  Let's just say that I've worked at Wal-Mart in the past and they take a very dim view of people like this young woman.  Had it happened at Wal-Mart, you can bet I would've told the manager all about it.  The young lady would've gotten (at the very least) a tongue-lashing.  She more than likely would've had to apologize to my father and I.

At this place, however, given Little Manager Boy on duty ... I don't hold my breath.  I'm debating on whether or not I should complain to their home office about it.  Given the type of people I've seen (albeit at this ONE store which is not a valid sample) working there, their reply would probably be "He should've been watching where he was walking."


Today, Stephen Baldwin, brother of Alec Baldwin, said that he'd leave the United States if BHO is elected to be president.  If you remember, Alec allegedly said something similar, that he would leave the U.S. if Bush beat Gore.  But according to, that never happened, although even Alec does admit that the interview took place.

Robert Altman, however, did say he'd leave the US if Bush beat Gore (he didn't leave, for the record.)  He later even claimed that he didn't mean Paris, France; he meant Paris, Texas. (For the record, he didn't move there either.)

But now we come back to Stephen Baldwin.  As much as I hate to predict who will win, I don't think JM can.  I do believe that BHO will be the next President.  Is that what I personally want?  No ... I've said this before:  Neither JM nor BHO should be the President.  In my opinion, I can't vote for either of them and keep a clear conscience.

But Mr. Baldwin; if BHO does win, will you leave the US?  Or will you follow Mr. Altman's example and weasel your way out of it.

Words, folks.  Words.  They say and reflect what's in our hearts.  And in today's digital age, they have a way of coming at you out of the blue to prove that you really did say something.  Don't they, Hillary?

And one more thing ... you might've seen recently that Bill Clinton's role in any Obama administration has been a point of contention in talks between BHO and HRC. 

That's putting it politely.  Scuttlebutt has it that a number of advisors to BHO want Hillary to put Bill on a very short leash and keep him " the basement..." 

At the very least, he's been a serious liability for Hillary.  And BHO's brining him aboard his campaign would bring about 'change' ... how, exactly?

Hillary i$ old $chool Wa$hington politic$.  His bringing her aboard would undermine his entire campaign.  Perhaps we should put both Clintons in the political "basement." ... And keep them there.

One more political thing:  on the radio today, one of the newscasters mentioned that we'd first heard about "alternative energy" sources in the mid-1970's.

Let's take that to mean 1975, since that's mid-way through the decade.  33 years, folks.  THIRTY THREE years of talking about alternative energy and not doing one damn thing.

I'll say it again; perhaps I'm not the only one out of touch.