Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Before I post any of the article and dissect it, remember this: This is a Cuban official who said these things. And, with Cuban's stance towards the United States you'd expect some blustering. Having said that ... read on.
" HAVANA (AP) - Cuba's foreign minister called President Barack Obama an "imperial and arrogant" liar Monday for his conduct at the U.N. climate conference, a reflection of the communist island's increasingly fiery verbal attacks on the U.S. government.
" Bruno Rodriguez spent an hour and a half lambasting Obama's behavior in Copenhagen, telling a news conference, "at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama, who does not listen, who imposes his positions and even threatens developing countries."
" He called the summit "a fallacy, a farce" and said Washington used back-room deals and strong-arm tactics to foist on the world a deal that he labeled "undemocratic" and "suicidal" because it urges - but does not require - major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts. "
There it is, in its entirety and without any emphasis or anything else added. Now it's time to distill some things down.
Mr Rodriguez sais that Mr Obama does not listen, he imposes his positions and threatens developing countries. Again, this is a Cuban official saying these things. But haven't we seen this right here in the United States?
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." (*1) Isn't that what the Obamessiah said recently to Rep. Peter DeFazio?
How many other people have called Mr Obama "arrogant?" Do a Google search for "arrogant AND Obama" and then stand back. Far back.
" Votes are being bought left and right to pass this health care reform bill that evolved into something that almost nobody in the left or right, not to mention the majority of the people, want but that Harry Reid is ramming down everybody’s throats for no reason other than to massage the ego of the arrogant Obama. " (*3)
But as another Wikipedia Editor told us recently "Google hits don't get us anywhere" (and then promptly used Google hits to bolster his/her own view), let's also consider this: Mr Rodriguez also said that Washington had used "back-room deals" and "strong-arm tactics." Again, this is a Cuban official.
But then there's this: " As polls have consistently shown, the more Americans learn about Democratic plans for health care, the more the opposition grows. Mr. Reid appreciates this dynamic, which is why he wrote his bill behind closed doors, when only Santa could have any real idea of who's earning a place on the naughty list. " (emphasis added.) Time for that full disclosure thing - the writer is talking about Mr Reid. But Mr Reid follows in the Obamessiah's footsteps.
There's also this: " President Barack Obama campaigned on health care reform, among other things, and he’s set one deadline after another to accomplish this. The Congress has so far failed to respond to his demands, despite strong Democrat majorities in both Houses. So, it’s time to pass something — anything. " (*4 (Emphasis and colour added))
His 'demands,' folks. Not requests, not suggestions: demands. Is this the 'change' you voted for? 'Change' for the sake of change?
We did try to warn you.
(*1) - http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio
(*2) - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610512331342976.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
(*3) - http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_355233643.html
(*4) - http://www.bdtonline.com/columns/local_story_355174119.html
Monday, December 21, 2009
(Image Courtesy and Copyright by rasmussenreports.com. Used with permission.)
That's actually quite telling ... and damming. For reference, Mr Obama's PAI score has been in negative territory since 30-JUN-09 (or 06/30/09.)
This, however, marks the lowest it's ever been. Oops
For further reference, he's been in the double-digits since 15-NOV-09 (11/15/09.) For that ONE DAY it was at -9.
You can see the trend (history) for yourself at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) you've come the WRONG way.
1) A New York Post account ('gregb1967' posts there, but that is NOT me)
2) A Twitter account (Somebody named 'gregb1967' is there, but again, that is not me (And as an aside, I'm tired of hearing/reading about Twitter and Tweets. Ewwww....))
3) A Facebook account
4) A Myspace account (several different people have tried to get me to set one up, they've all been told 'no' and the reasoning behind it.)
5) A Sportingnews account
6) A linkedin account
7) Or any other social networking site account.
I DO have:
1) A Wikipedia account (but not on this name)
2) An account at michellemalkin.com (again, not on this name)
3) An account with homelandsecurityus.com (and again, not on this name.)
So when you see that 'gregb1967' says something ... be sure it's me. If it's not at gregb1967.blogspot.com, you've got the wrong one.
Friday, December 4, 2009
When does UNINSTALL NOT mean UNINSTALL?
Sometimes, when you select "UNINSTALL" the program(s) being uninstalled will leave parts of itself (themselves) behind:
* registry entries
* installation folder (Main folder)
* auxillary folders (Game or data folders)
Given the complexity of today's programs, this could easily be expected. Plus, today's hard drives are gargantuan in size given yesterday's models, so programmers might not feel too badly in leaving small bits behind. But let's select one for the dubious distinction of NOT being able to UNINSTALL itself.
Star Wars Galaxies.
Last month, I cancelled my subscription to Star Wars Galaxies. Why? There are several reasons for this, none of which are important to the subject at hand - that is, the program's being unable to UNINSTALL itself. Since they bill one month in advance, the unsubscribe actually took effect today. So, today; when I tried to sign in, I was correctly told that I did not have a valid subscription. This is all well and good, and operated exactly as expected.
I selected the compete uninstall option from the options in Add/Remove Programs. Now to you and I perhaps, "complete" means "complete." Just to be certain, however, I went to dictionary.com for a definition of "complete."
1. having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full: a complete set of Mark Twain's writings. (This is exactly as it appears on their definition.) (*)
4. thorough; entire; total; undivided, uncompromised, or unmodified: a complete victory; a complete mess. (This is exactly as it appears on their definition.) (*)
The key points of this are, to me, "having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full; thorough; total; and unmodified." To me, this means, the entire thing should have been uninstalled.
Alas, "complete" does not mean "complete" over at Sony Online Entertainment (SOE, the folks that publish Star Wars Galaxies.)
During the installation of the game, I had selected the installation drive as Drive D, the second physical hard disk on this computer. (I actually have a Western Digital USB drive that I sometimes use, but this is a detachable drive, so it was not used at the installation drive.)
The game installed itself into the Program Files folder on D. "D:\Program Files\StarWarsGalaxies) And, over the years of playing the game, it grew to a size of 6.35G, or, 6,821,743,799 bytes.
Today, I selected the "complete" uninstall option. Again, to you and I perhaps, this should have taken the "complete" folder with it.
But this is SOE that we're talking about.
SIZE BEFORE "complete" uninstall: 6,821,743,799
SIZE AFTER "complete" uninstall: 6,127,948,560.
::blink:: In dividing that out, we learn that the "complete" UNINSTALL left 89.8301% of itself behind.
Oops. Yes, it removed the entry in the Start Menu, but it somehow also missed the entry that had been pinned to the Start Menu.
But there's more.
Do you remember my telling you that I had specifically requested during installation that all files be installed onto drive D, the second physical hard drive? Again, to you and I perhaps, that means that everything should have been installed onto drive D.
But, again, this is SOE we're talking about.
Specifically, C:\Program Files\Sony\Station\LaunchPad.
Size BEFORE UNINSTALL: 15,625,583 bytes or 15.8G
Size AFTER UNINSTALL: same.
That's right, folks. Not only should it not have installed itself onto drive C, but it magically left every bit of itself behind.
To be honest here there are several different games that SOE publishes, all of which use LaunchPad to launch (start) the games. So in this regard perhaps, it's understandable that it should leave itself behind, and only remove the SWG portion of itself.
But, frankly, I would have expected itself to know that there were no other SOE games installed, and for it to have given me the opportunity to uninstall it. It did neither.
Nor does it show up under Add/Remove Programs. (Time for that full disclosure thing; if you manually install LaunchPad after installing SWG it will show up under Add/Remove Programs. However, during this install, I simply installed SWG only, which itself installed LaunchPad. And onto the wrong disk to boot.)
To make matters worse, it uninstalled not one single byte.
(*) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complete
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
It was signed this time by "Tim Monroe, Travel Getaways, Inc."
You should recognize "Travel Getaways, Inc." as being the same "company" that "Sue Madden" was from. It came from monroetravelinc.com, more on that in a moment.
But believe it or not, but they didn't use GoDaddy.com this time. I was shocked. I checked it twice - still not GoDaddy.com. Perhaps they learned?
Remember: WHOIS is your friend.
WHOIS information for monroetravelinc.com :[Querying whois.internic.net]
[Redirected to whois.netfirms.com]
Domain Privacy Group, Inc.
7030 Woodbine Ave. Suite 800
Markham, ON L3R 6G2
Domain name: monroetravelinc.com
Domain Privacy Group, Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
7030 Woodbine Ave. Suite 800
Markham, ON L3R 6G2
Domain Privacy Group, Inc. email@example.com
7030 Woodbine Ave. Suite 800
Markham, ON L3R 6G2
Registrar of Record: Netfirms Inc.
Record expires on 2010-11-21.
Record created on 2009-11-21.
Database last updated on 2009-12-01 06:54:31.
NOTICE the "record expires" and "record created" fields.
This is a sure sign of a fly-by-nite corporation ... or a spammer.
This time our friend went through "Domain Privacy Group" which means that using such a company as the registrant means you don't put in your 'real' contact information.
Seems like "Pete Greenwood" finally grew a brain. But it won't help him. His shiney new site just got axed.
And I'm not sorry about it.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
" Attorney Galen Cook joins Ian Punnett in the first hour to discuss the D.B. Cooper mystery on the anniversary of the case.
" Then, counter-terrorism specialist David Gaubats will share his insights into the Council of Islamic Relations and Muslim Brotherhood's plans to destroy American society from within. "
(Links are Coast to Coast AM's and are left intact.)
This is a must-listen to show. Seriously.
Visit this page: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/affiliates to see if your local station carries C2C. Also, many of the radio stations listed as affiliates will allow you to stream C2C.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Well, some time back, the game CD of my all-time favourite computer game broke ... inside the CD-ROM drive. I turned the computer on, heard a CRUNCH and then a WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrr... and thought the worst.
It turns out that the game CD that I'd been using to play the game (which, unfortunately had also been run over by my office chair (Yes, I know you're not supposed to put a damaged disc in the drive. But I love the game)) had broken.
BUT ... the author of the game had recently released the "Gold Version" of the game, which I had purchased.
While it's true I'll have to reinstall off the new CD, I won't lose my saved games. I also found (more on this in a moment) two of my favourite music CDs, and my DVD of Dune (the miniseries, not the movie.) Talk about wonderful news!!
"Found?" Yes, found.
As you're no doubt aware by now if you've been reading for any length of time, I moved not too terribly long ago following a messy and not-too-friendly divorce.
I won't get into details, since even now it's still painful. Suffice it to say that most of what I own is still in boxes. I was going through one of the boxes to find something else and ran into these things ... and I had thought they were in another different box.
So, tonight I'm going to reinstall the game and go back to "blowing shit up." I might also get back onto the game's network (oh, who am I fooling? You know I will) and try to blow them up too.
Note to any 3-letter government agency reading this: This is a computer game where you are trying to destroy your competition. Sometimes you do that by forcing them to resign or by blowing them up. Perhaps if you were as interested in not whitewashing the jihadi ties of Maj. Hasan ...
'Safe computing' seems to be all the rage these days. There are those that say that if you use a firewall, be careful what you download, be careful what you install, be careful where you surf, and have a good anti-virus, you'll be just fine.
It's true that you'll be safer. But if the bad guys really are determined to find their way into your system, odds are they'll find a way. It might not even be to do something horrible to you, as odds are they don't know you. Odds are they simply want your computer and your bandwidth. Why is that?
One word: Botnet. Lots of compromised machines all attacking the same spot at the same time. It might not even be that, it could be just to shoot out spam. But I digress.
Safe. The only true "safe" computer is a computer that is completely off the Internet, and that you don't transfer files from the internet onto. For example: Let's say that the "safe" computer only has Windows and a printer. You download a .DOC file from your email, transfer it to diskette (does anybody still use those?) or CD-RW and then open it on your 'safe' computer to print it out.
Unfortunately, even that's not safe as it is possible that the anti-virus on your Internet computer missed the digital nasty within the .DOC file. Possible? Certainly.
Or, you download a game from one of "those" sites, copy it onto a CD-RW and install it onto your "safe" computer. Unfortunately, it came from one of "those" sites and your anti-virus missed the keylogger embedded in it. Granted, a keylogger on a computer that's not connected to the Internet won't be able to phone home, but the fact is that your 'safe' computer just got compromised.
And while I'm very sorry to say this, the simple fact is that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe computer any longer. UNLESS that 'safe' computer sits in the corner unattached to the Internet and all you never transfer files to or from it. In that case, it is safe from Internet attacks. It's also nearly useless.
That's not to say that you can't protect yourself to make it harder for the bad guys to get you.
If you're using a Wi-Fi router (I pray you're not) make sure it's using WPA encryption. Also, get into its settings and change the default password and address range. (Contact the store where you bought it from or the manufacturer of the router for assistance if you need it. Or ask a friend who knows how to do this.) If using a wired router, update its firmware as needed, and don't forget to change the password and default address range.
Next, while a good anti-virus is not a protection against everything, it is an excellent idea to have one. There are several excellent free ones out there, or you can go with some of the subscription services. In any event, make sure that the definition files are up to date. Many of them will allow you to configure them to update as frequently as you wish.
A firewall is also a good idea, and again, there are many excellent choices out there. Make sure that you block inbound and outbound traffic both and allow only what is needed to reach the Internet. Make sure that it too is kept up to date. If you're using Windows XP SP2 (or Vista or 7) the firewall is on by default. It's better than nothing, but I should not like to depend upon it.
Don't visit "those" sites. And by "those" I mean porn, warez, or any sites similar to those. You never know what you'll get. Stay away from file-sharing software such as WinMX or Kazaa as well. Bad guys (and gals too, let's not forget about them) can easily find their way onto your system from the software itself.
If you do online banking, make sure that the address isn't "http://" but rather "https://" The "s" stands for "secure." Or, rather, more secure; since it too could be broken.
Update your OS. Microsoft Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 all update themselves automatically. If you're comforable letting it do this; great. If you'd rather do it manually, check for updates no less frequently than weekly. Although "Patch Tuesday" is the 2nd Tuesday of each month for Windows, you never know if you'll miss an out-of-cycle patch unless you check.
A quick word about passwords: Make them hard for others to guess. Don't use words or names as these would be subject to dictionary and/or brute force attacks. An ideal password would be between eight and 16 characters in length and would contain numbers, letters (both upper and lower case) and extra characters (@, #, $, and so on.) Try not to use a pattern there either.
That sounds like a lot, I know. But each step you take makes it more likely that the bad guys will pass you over and search for somebody less-well protected. But even these steps cannot and will not guarantee that you're machine won't be compromised. But you'll have made it much harder for the bad people to get into.
And a few final words: Reading security bulletins is an excellent way to stay informed. But if you don't have time to do that, consider downloading Steve Gibson's "Security NOW!" podcast as it contains a wealth of information. "Windows Weekly with Paul Thurrott" likewise contains valuable information.
NOTE: Although there is no formal relationship (working or otherwise) between Steve Gibson, Gibson Research Corporation, Leo Laporte, TWiT, or the TWiT Network and myself, I do subscribe to Mr Gibson's security podcast "Security Now!" as well as to several of Mr Laporte's podcasts.
While it's true that even doing this won't protect you 100 per cent of the time, it's a very good idea to do so.
Time for that full-disclosure thing: While I have donated money to Mr Laporte I have no financial interest in his endeavour (ie: I don't get paid to mention him or the network.) And while I have been a licensed user of Mr Gibson's SpinRite since SpinRite II, I have no financial interest there either. But in the interests of full disclosure, there you go. Perhaps if some politicians were to be so forthright...
(*) - http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-221.htm
Gibson Research Corporation: http://www.grc.com/
Security NOW!: http://www.grc.com/SN/
TWiT Netcast Network: http://twit.tv/
Windows Weekly with Paul Thurrott: http://twit.tv/ww/
Saturday, November 14, 2009
" BEIJING (AP) - The Chinese have learned English from his speeches and celebrated the way he rolls up his sleeves. Now President Barack Obama is finally coming, and he's being greeted with "Oba Mao" T-shirts and a statue of him that bursts into flames.
" Sunday's arrival of a U.S. president admired for his charisma is already a source of profit and brief fame for some Chinese.
" Strangest is the burning Obama, tucked away in a Beijing warehouse. Artist Liu Bolin hopes Obama can take time from his visit to drop by. " (Link is Breitbart.com's and is left intact.)
The Chinese did it, but just imagine what would happen if somebody here in the U.S. had done so. The Secret Service would show up in .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
seconds and cordon off the area as a crime scene.
The media would get there moments later and immediately pronounce far and wide that this was a "racist hate crime." Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson would also show up claiming that this was also a "hate crime." Keith Olbermann would immediately have Janeane Garofalo on his show again to show that this was "...racism straight up." Oddly enough, those same people have stayed strangely mute on Maj. Hasan's known ties to a radical Imam.
" One Beijing shop owner wanted to see what Obama could do for sales. Liu Mingjie created "Oba Mao" T-shirts, with the president wearing the uniform of the Red Guards, who caused chaos during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. " (Link is breitbart.com's and is left intact.)
'Oba Mao.' Can't do that here in the US (although the Chinese government did order them to stop selling the shirts.) It's politically incorrect here in the States (remember about that mall in North Carolina revoking the lease of a kiosk selling anti-Obama stuff?) The Chinese authorities ordered them to stop selling the shirts because "...there are images of Obama wearing the uniform of the Red Army." (Which, given his socialist agenda, might not be too far off the mark. Remember Van Jones' radical Communist ties?)
I'm going to leave this posting with this. I probably shouldn't post all of it, but here goes:
" There is also the unfortunate side-effect to all the misplaced enthusiasm of the artist and that is the gift the English language has for puns and playing on words. After the initial emotional jolt for the viewer is over, one’s mind starts wandering over the rumors concerning Obama’s preferred sexual orientation (flaming gay), his overseeing of the destruction of America by stripping her of her assets (fire sale), his Apologize-for-America world tours (flaming shame), what the military must be thinking of him right now for his continuous stalling on Afghanistan (burning bastard), his silent, communist, czar-laden coup (blazing lunatic), his desire to push the destructive global warming agenda on us even as we enter a new Ice age (hottest hoax around) and his total disregard for his Presidential oath to uphold, protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States (liar, liar, pants-on-fire).
" Then there are those weekly Wednesday night soirées where Obama parties hardy by scarfing down Kobe beef and vodka martinis while the rest of us tighten our budgetary belts (disco inferno). Of course, there’s Obama’s tardy, weak and politically correct response to the murderous Sudden Jihad Syndrome outburst by a Muslim at Ft. Hood (gun fire) and there’s the total and complete lack of real national security while Obama’s incompetent Secretary of Homeland Security ignores our porous borders (up in smoke) whereby some actual terrorist someday is going to bring in a suitcase nuke driven by the desire to make the real Obama look like his statue (spontaneous incandescence). " (*)
Wow. Talk about incendiary rhetoric. (COULDN'T RESIST!!!)
(*) - http://www.therealitycheck.org/?p=8367
Those who have been reading this blog for any length of time will have noticed something wrong. First, today is Saturday. Second, our group met today?!?
Yes and no. We met yesterday as well, and decided on the spur of the moment (amid a flurry of late-night emails and text messages (for those that text message. I don't.)) to meet again tonight.
It met with quite a few dropped jaws as we began to arrive at the shoppe. Bill actually brought his wife Nancy, a registered nurse at the local hospital. That marked the first time we'd been joined by a member's family. Since she's also as conservative as we are, she immediately became known as "Cee." (Although I suspect that Bill will be sleeping on the couch tonight.)
I brought this up for a number of reasons. First, it was the first time we'd been joined by a family member. Second, it marked the first time in our group's history we'd met on a Saturday. Third, we found out that many of Nancy's co-workers are vehemently opposed to President Obama's health care initiative.
And I do mean vehemently opposed. Apparently, that as well as various patients is quite the topic in various breakrooms. She named various doctors who had various negative things to say about the President's initiative.
This is in stark contrast to various organizations that state that their doctors are behind the President. Although this was in no way a scientific survey, it's quite telling. Perhaps those big organizations are out-of-touch with what the rank and file as to say ... or they've got an agenda.
God knows we've seen that before.
Friday, November 13, 2009
As in "Yeah, they're over there in the corner pocket."
The title should be self-evident: "Fort Hood aftermath: Daley blames guns, WA Times Blames Clinton." The idiocy should also be self-evident.
" “Everyday in society,” [Chicago Mayor Richard M.]Daley said, “somebody is being killed. Unfortunately, America loves guns. We love guns to a point where that, uh, we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group. You don’t blame a society, an immigrant community because of actions of one group...one individual. You cannot say that.” (*)
Really? How about the Nazi concentration-camp guards that shot escapees? Don't we already blame (and rightly so!) their ideology about that? So in that case, we do blame the (Nazi) society and the community of the concentration-camp guards. But here, because he was Muslim, well. It just has to be the gun's fault. Really?
" In other words, if I set my firearm down on the table, what does it do? Does the firearm get up, dust itself off, and then grow arms and legs and go out and rob somebody? We live, as most physicists now believe, in a MULTI-verse in which our universe is but one of many. So there might be a universe out there where the firearm really can grow arms and legs and go out and rob somebody. But in this universe, it can't happen. " (**)
But there have also been crimes committed by people using knives. Enter Jack the Ripper (yes, that one.) Tell me; was it the knife's fault?
What about people who commit suicide by driving their cars into lakes (with themselves inside.) Was it the car's fault? How about those who commit suicide by hanging themselves with a bed sheet? Was it the bed sheet's fault? How about those who commit suicide by overdosing on a prescribed medication? Was it the medicine's fault? Some people think so - and that's one of the reasons that medications have warning labels.
But I just love those sleep-aids that contain this warning: "WARNING: may cause drowsiness." You don't say. Yes, this is one of those 'duh' moments.
What about drunk drivers? Was it the car's fault there, too? Frankly, I blame the driver. I know plenty of social drinkers (there are a few in our Friday coffee group) who refuse to have a sip of alcohol and then drive. You read that right ... one sip of alcohol is enough for them to hand somebody else the keys.
" People commit crimes. They use a variety of weapons to do so, but people themselves commit the crimes.
" As I said, it's easy to blame the firearm, the knife, the spork, the stick. Let's not do that anymore. Let's blame the people who commit the crime, not the tools they use. " (**)
(*) - http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Fort-Hood-aftermath-Daley-blames-guns-WA-Times-blames-Clinton
(**) - http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/06/supreme-court-and-2nd-amendment.html
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
" WASHINGTON – Finger-pointing erupted between federal agencies Tuesday over Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan. Government officials said a Defense Department terrorism investigator looked into Hasan's contacts with a radical imam months ago, but a military official denied prior knowledge of the Army psychiatrist's contacts with any Muslim extremists.
" The two government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record, said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and a radical imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year. "
Expect the PC whitewashing to begin as well. " The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation — in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said. "
No sh!t. (heavy sarcasm) Does anybody remember the last time an abortion provider was gunned down? Immediately we were informed about his motives. It was hatred, pure and simple. It was because he was an extremist. It was because of (insert whatever you want here).
Now we have Maj. Hasan trying to contact Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, we have his ties to the radical Imam, we have him worshipping in the same radicalized Mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers ... and we're not supposed to jump to conclusions about his motives.
Double standard? Be very careful with your answer.
Here's what I wrote directly to the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) about this:
" (extraneous information redacted)
I need to present a few facts to you: Maj. Hasan worshipped at the Dar al Hijrah Centre in Falls Church, VA at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers. That, Sirs, is not an opinion, it is a fact.
FACT: One of the former Imams of that Centre, Anwar al Awlaki lead the prayers at the time the two 9/11 hijackers worshipped there. Their names? Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour. Again, this is FACT.
FACT: Maj. Hasan was reprimanded for telling wounded soldiers they need to convert to Islam.
FACT: Over the last 10 months alone, Maj. Hasan makes the 61st arrest of a 'home-grown' terrorist. And according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm) they've all been Muslim. Let me repeat that for those of you in denial: All of the 61 arrests of 'home-grown' terror suspects have been Muslim.
And the press and the President dare to call me the extremist. I guess that explains why I had to read a United Kingdom paper's website to learn of these links: Links that the US papers are only now beginning to acknowledge.
Sirs, you now have a difficult decision to make. I don't give an overweight rat's rectum for political correctness - I never have. Too many people, including senior military officers, call it "The New Fascism."
Your choice is this: either bow to the blinders of political correctness, or acknowledge that having radical Imams (of the 14 currently in the military, 10 are KNOWN to have been radicalized) in the military is akin to asking Nazis to handle decryption during WWII. Again, that figure is not my opinion it is a FACT.
So ... what, if anything, do you plan to do?
I await what will in all probability be an echoing silence. "
And yes, I wasn't very polite with them, I know that. I'm old enough and respected enough that I don't have to couch my words in politeness. I'm too damned old to take PC sh!t either.
Let's just say that it'll be a very VERY cold day in Hell (and not Hell, MI either) before I'm allowed back into Wa$hington.
Let's take this one step further: " The information obtained from HASAN’s digital files reportedly shows a “pattern of deliberate and willful planning to conduct some type of attack against the U.S. military prior to his deployment” [to Afghanistan], stated this source who requested anonymity as he is not authorized to speak publicly. “The motive behind the massacre appears to be rooted in his ideology, an ideology which was emboldened by online activity,” added this source. " (*)
Still think you're going to hear the truth from the MSM?
Wait: It goes much further and much much deeper into the sewers of political correctness. Quoting again:
" As indicated by a ABC News Online article, intelligence sources reportedly had a level of knowledge that HASAN was in communication with al Qaeda assets abroad. The source speaking to this author confirmed that report but went further, stating that this and information similar but not directly related to such communications became a “political issue” between government agencies and officials “at the policy making levels” of the administration.
" According to this source, the now infamous pre-9/11 walls erected within government agencies have returned, “but this time they are higher and stronger.” “There is an unwillingness to address ‘delicate’ intelligence and security matters by sharing information outside of the beltway, and that directive comes right from the top. That’s all I’m going to say right now,” stated this source. " (Link is the Northeast Intelligence Network's and is left intact.)(emphasis added) (*)
Having quoted that, let me add this: If you think the government, including our own military, isn't now awash in the sewer of political correctness, you'd better wake up.
The radical Muslims want us dead. Pure and simple. I'm not talking about the non-radicalized Muslims you'll note. I used to work with a young woman who had converted to Islam, and we worked closely together for nearly a year before she took a higher-paying job. She was one of the sweetest people you'd ever want to meet. Although she did wear the Hajib and she did fast during Ramadan, you'd never notice anything amiss since she told jokes and hung around with the rest of us.
But that's my point: I'm not pointing the finger of blame at all Muslims. I'm pointing the finger of blame at Radical Islam and those in our government who are too afraid to point out that they do exist and want to kill us.
(*) - http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3250
They have the actual audio available online for you to download. " [Local ACORN spokesman David] Lagstein notes that the Attorney General is a “political animal.” He states that he has been in communication with Brown’s office and assures the crowd that “the fault WILL be found with the people that did the video — not ACORN.” "
Just remember folks, no political correctness here. Move along please.
Monday, November 9, 2009
" A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.
" Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress. "
"Suggested?" If you've read my past postings about this, you'll know it wasn't "suggested" it's been PROVEN.
I'm frankly shocked that Sen. Lieberman had the balls to even suggest this. My respect for the man (and I had a great deal of respect before this because he dared to vote his conscience) just tripled. Sadly, I know what his investigation will turn into. It'll be blind-sided by the political correctness that's devoured the Pentagon and Wa$hington and will go nowhere. It'll be a dog-and-pony show ... at best.
" The Army's top officer, Gen. George Casey, wouldn't rule out that the shooting was an act of terrorism, but cautioned against speculation at this point. "We all want to know what happened and what motivated the suspect, but we need to … let the investigation take its course," he told ABC News's "This Week." "
General Casey said we need to let the investigation run its course. I understand, respect, and acknowledge that. It makes sense. But let's not put on the blinders of political correctness ... and that's already beginning!!
" General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
" “I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” " (*) (Link is the New York Times' and is left intact.)
Gotta love the blinders of political correctness, ne? Our diversity is going to suffer if we correctly label him a home-grown terrorist!!
" The major, a 39-year-old psychiatrist, is the American-born son of Palestinian immigrants. He vocally opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and seems to have moved toward more extreme religious beliefs in recent years, according to the investigators. Investigators have tentatively concluded that he acted alone and was not part of a terrorist plot. " (Link is the New York Times' and has been left intact.)
Let's see ... he studied at the same radicalized Mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers at the same time they were there! You're seriously going to tell me that there is absolutely no connection?!? Come on.
They've " ... tentatively concluded that he acted alone ... " In other words, yet another "Lone wolf." Remember me writing about that as well?
I'm not saying he was part of a greater terrorist plot, I'm saying that the evidence suggests that he could have been. For anybody to rule that out at this part of the investigation is, in my opinion, just as bad as pulling the trigger and killing those innocent people themselves. And for them to blind themselves at this part of the investigation is wrong.
Gotta love political correctness.
(*) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09casey.html?_r=1
Sunday, November 8, 2009
It doesn't seem that way today, does it?
The link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html
" Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall. "
Um...wow. I don't know about you, but I'm definitely not a millionaire. That's not to say I couldn't put that money to good use:
1) Pay off bills
2) Ensure the financial well-being of my family
3) Put money into the bank (NOT those that have taken TARP monies) to ensure my future financial well-being, and
4) Donate to charities.
Now let's remember back when Mr McCain was rightly chastised by the Democrats for not remembering how many houses he had. Each of those properties adds to his net worth, as it does for each member who is listed in the report. But to quote again from the report:
" One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers. " (emphasis added)
It certainly could. Let's use Mr McCain as an example. Let's assume he has a net worth currently of $14 million (for the record, I have no idea what his net worth is. This is a hypothetical situation and I selected the number at random.)
For the sake of this article, let's further assume (again, hypothetically) that he has six houses (residences) and that each of these are valued at $250,000.
Now it's time for more math (sorry!!) 6 x 250,000 = 1,500,000.
Since he's not required to list the value of those residences, let's assume he didn't. His net worth was $14 million, but we've just increased it by $1.5 million.
We've increased his net worth by 9.3%. (14,000,000 / 1,500,000 = 9.333333333)
Again, this is a hypothetical situation using hypothetical numbers. But if we were to add in the residences of many of those members, the numbers given in the article would be even greater.
Again, I don't know about you - but I don't have two houses.
But one quick exit question: Mr Obama wants to increase taxes on the millionaires. Will that include the members listed in the report or not?
If not, why not?
Time for that full-disclosure thing: There is no relationship between Mr Hagmann or myself, nor between the Northeast Intelligence Network and myself other than I have conversed with Mr Hagmann on numerous occassions via email. He did not ask me to link to his site, I offered to.
But before I begin, let's consider this FBI statistic: Over the last 10 months alone, this [ Maj. Hasan ] makes the 61st arrest of a 'home-grown' terrorist. All 61 have been Muslim. (*, **)
Again, time for that full-disclosure thing: I do subscribe to streamlink so I can download Coast to Coast AM whenever I wish. Although they are sometimes controversial, they have had numerous mainstream people on: Dr. Peter Ward, Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Dr. Joseph Resnik, Dr. Phillip Plait, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
But let's return to the subject at hand: " 8 November 2009: As noted by this author in the initial background profile published just hours after the Ft. Hood massacre here, Nidal Malik HASAN was an active member of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque and Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia while stationed in the area in 2001. HASAN participated in mosque activities during the summer of 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, two of the 9/11 hijackers, were active members. The infamous Dar al-Hijrah Mosque has been on the radar of federal investigators and counter-terrorism investigators long before the 9/11 attacks, and has been described as a “hotbed of terrorist activity” by an FBI agent who has been involved in terrorism investigations that specifically included that mosque. " (Links are the Northeast Intelligence Network's and are left intact. Emphasis added.) (*4)
Let's also consider this: " His [Maj. Hasan's] fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint. (***)
Ah, the ugly head of political correctness rears itself again. Can't say anything bad about a Muslim (even if true and verifiable) because you must be a bigot. You simply must be.
Let's also consider this: " Other terrorist luminaries, including Sheikh Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, previously served as a prayer leader at Dar la-Hijrah [Maj. Hasan's Mosque.] Other notable former mosque members include HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, Abdurahman Alamoudi, Randall “Ismail” Royer (former officials of the Council on American Islamic Relations), Ismail Elbarasse, al Qaeda operative Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, and Abdullah bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s nephew." (*4)
Yes, the same Mosque that Maj. Hasan was at included two former CAIR officials. You don't say. " Despite their self-described depiction as an advocate of Islamic civil rights and contrary to their public position, some CAIR officials and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood associated with CAIR have endorsed all of the aspects of Sharia law, including those that accept or tacitly approve of Sharia justice. Do not let CAIR, the media, or any government agency or official tell you otherwise. " (*5)
Why is any of this important? Because somebody somewhere should have stopped Maj. Hasan before he murdered innocent people. We now know he was 'on the radar' for at least SIX MONTHS before his murderous rampage. We know that others feared speaking about it because they were afraid of "... appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student ... " (***)
And then there's this: " "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do," said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan's "anti-American" rants. "He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out." " (***)
You don't say. And the most damning thing? " "In retrospect, I'm not surprised he did it," Finnell said of the shootings. "I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were." " (***)
Gotta love political correctness, ne?
(*) - http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm
(**) - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/11/07 (Hour One.)
(***) - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BRD8GO1.html
(*4) - http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3246
(*5) - http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3209
In fallout that reaches far beyond NY-23, Mr Owens broke 4 campaign promises during his first hour in congress.
That's got to be a record.
You'll remember that the RNC (Republican National Committee) endorsed that liberal in conservative clothing, Dede Scozzafava.
She was a conservative in name only. She was pro-'choice' and quite a few other things that put her at odds with true conservatives.
When she dropped out of the race, she then endorsed the Democrat Mr Owens. Thank you so much, RNC. You poured nearly $1 million dollars into her campaign and then she screwed you (and us) over.
How do you feel now, RNC? Take a moment to read Michelle Malkin's article about it (**, ***) where you'll find rejected RNC donation letters.
This is important because Ms Scozzafava "...shares the same socialist alliances with fellow SEIU/ACORN/New Party/Working Families Party activist Patrick Gaspard, the Obama White House political director who intervened in the race to secure Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens." (***. Links are Ms Malkin's and are left intact.)
When she dropped out, she endorsed the Democrat Owens, who, as it turns out, broke four of his campaign promises in one damned hour!! Thank you so damn much, RNC. I'm gonna repeat one of the rejected RNC donation letters "NOT ONE MORE PENNY."
So what were the promises that that liar Mr Owens made?
1) He is now in favour of the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act," which is in direct contrast to his earlier position.
2) During the campaign "...he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website. " (*. See that site for the screenshot.) Well, the House "reform bill" contains provisions that will increase taxes on the middle class, tax health care benefits, and cuts Medicare benefits. Thank you so damned much RNC.
3) Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) said that the bill would not contain provisions for illegal immigrants as Mr Owens said he would not support. Said bill does now contain provisions for health care for illegal immigrants. Oops. You'll remember, I hope, that the Damocrats chastised Rep. Joe Wilson for calling Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) a liar, although it now seems true. Pity the Damocrats couldn't chastise their own members who called Mr Bush a liar during one of his State of the Union addresses. This is 'change?' How, exactly, is this different? Smells like the same sh!t as always to me.
4) I don't want to paraphrase the entire article, so I'll leave it to you to find this one.
Here's the end point: Mr Owens lied. He's a politician, so we expect that. But the RNC endorsed Ms Scozzafava over Mr Hoffman, poured nearly a million dollars into her coffers, and then she turned around and screwed the RNC and the conservatives over. How do you feel now, RNC?
Back when Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) was campaigning for the office of President, I sent a colleague of mine a letter to the RNC about ACORN and Freddie Johnson. You'll remember that ACORN pressured Mr Johnson into registering to vote an astonishing 72 times in Ohio!! (*4) The response I got back was "They are aware of the problem." I sent this person another missive asking if the RNC would get off its sorry ass and do anything. This is what I got back: "I was told that they're aware of the problem."
I'm going to be sending this colleague another missive shortly about Dede Scozzafava, Mr Owens, and Mr Hoffman and make it plainly aware to this person that any reply the RNC makes (if they have the guts to reply that is) will be posted here.
To the RNC: NOT ONE MORE DAMNED PENNY UNTIL YOU LEARN WHAT 'CONSERVATIVE' MEANS.
I sent my representative the following email and I'm going to repeat part of it. "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. Hopefully, one day you'll see that. Take your rose-coloured glasses off and you'll see a lot clearer."
NOT ONE MORE DAMNED PENNY, RNC. NOT ONE.
(*) - http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7623:owens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175
(**) - http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/04/making-sure-the-message-sticks-more-rejected-rnc-forms/
(***) - http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/04/the-gop-elites-1-million-object-lesson-and-the-message-of-ny-23/
(*4) - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/voter_registrations_8dh7PaKRiPc0BFNPZVnGMM
" Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001. "
You don't say.
" Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
" The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. "
Oops. Does anybody else remember me saying that nothing exists in a vacuum? In plainer words, all these "lone-wolf" attacks had to have come from somewhere.
The Fort Dix six? Anybody remember them? How about the shoe bomber?
Do you still think that the radical islamists want anything other than for us to "convert or die?"
So why read about it in a British paper? Two words:
Political Correctness. Can't say anything bad about radical Muslims here. That's taboo.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Let's take a look first at Ms Morena Baccarin, who plays the alien's leader Ana. She's a wonderful and talented actress. And on top of that, she's beautiful. On top of that, she's smart as a whip. As a person and as an actress, she has many good qualities. Yet I fear that somebody could see her performance in this series and decide she's 'too political.'
The first episode was complete with many thinly-veiled references to the Obama administration. And I too wonder how it got onto network TV, and especially on the All Barack Channel (ABC) which had Obama's infomercial on it not all that long ago.
I loved the first episode and plan to watch the rest of them.
The link: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/184217.asp
" The AARP, America's largest, most influential organization of older Americans, on Thursday put its weight behind the health care reform plan developed by House Democratic leaders, which includes a public option. "
Now bear a few things in mind: This is from Seattle. The article makes no mention of a few facts.
Fact one: Many in AARP are opposed to ObamaCare. You have only to visit You Tube to learn that.
Fact Two: AARP has a conflict of interest. Visit http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/09/22/aarp-helping-seniors-or-helping for the skinny.
" "There's an inherent conflict of interest....They're ending up becoming very dependent on sources of income." - Former AARP Executive Marilyn Moon, quoted in Bloomberg article.
" This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating Humana for providing "misleading" information regarding the Administration's proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage policies-and prohibited other Medicare Advantage plans from providing similar information on how Democrat health "reform" could take away their current coverage.
" Yet the Administration's edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats' government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization's operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors' medical care-with Democrats' full approval:
* The Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans proposed in Democrats' government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would cause millions of seniors to lose their current plan and enroll in government-run Medicare.
Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance. While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats' government takeover of health care.
* A review of its financial statements finds that in 2008, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies-$652.7 million in direct "royalties and fees," and an increase of more than 31 percent from the $497.6 million in similar revenue AARP generated in 2007.
* Royalty revenues now comprise more than half-60.3 percent-of all AARP revenues; a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization's total revenues.
* The Bloomberg article-which highlighted what one observer called AARP's "dirty little secret"-profiled seniors who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage. One noted that "AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal....This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen." Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization's leadership asking whether AARP had a "‘special relationship' with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?'"-and when he arrived at AARP headquarters for a tour, was promptly escorted out of the marble-covered atrium.
* While H.R. 3200 would place strict price controls on Medicare Advantage plans-requiring them to pay out 85 percent of premium revenues in medical claims-Medigap policies face a far less strict 65 percent requirement. In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund "kickbacks" to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans. "
Still think AARP has your best interests at heart?
Check out the 60-Plus Association at http://www.60plus.org/
P.S. For those who are wondering - their website has been around since 8-JUL-1996 and is registered to their corporate offices in Woodbridge, VA. In other words, it's not a fly-by-night.
" Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.
" Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
" Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month. "
"The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month."
What about those who are opposed to abortion on religious grounds? Moral grounds? Ethical grounds? What about those who just plain don't want to?
Remember Mr Osama (OBAMA ... I'm gonna keep having trouble with 'the one's' name, I just know it) saying that ObamaCare wouldn't be used to pay for abortions?
He lied? AGAIN? Say it ain't so, O!!
Having said that, there's something I need to say.
Back when I was working for a major wireless provider and even before that at a major computer manufacturer, we had to keep copious notes. Why? Good question, especially since a number of people these days don't bother to read the damn things.
The notes exist for a reason. They're there to make your job (the Customer Service Rep's) job easier. They're there to explain any oddities or special instructions about the account. In the case of payment information, they exist so that if there is a problem with a certain type of payment (cheque or credit card) you can ask for an alternate form of payment.
I actually had this happen: A Customer's debit card went to one account yet his cheque information (Same account mind you) went to another. It was what you could call a "Special Instruction," which is why I notated it as such. That's also another reason why the notes exist. Yet in more than one occassion at the wireless provider, I had my special instruction (ensuring that the Customer's debit card only was used for payment) removed and replaced with 'no obans.' (At the time I worked there, they kept track of accounts by BAN number. And a rep had to check for another ban 'oban (other BAN)' during each call. And they had to note such in the logs.) Now forgive me for being dense, but 'no obans' does not a special instruction make:
1) Each rep was required to check for another BAN (oban)
2) Each rep was required to note any other BANs in the account notes (Either "oban (account #)" or "no obans")
3) Under reasons 1 and 2 above, that was not a special instruction.
Yet I had to appear before an area manager and explain why I was 'causing trouble' in trying to get people to NOT notate special instructions as 'oban' or 'no oban.' Honestly. Talk about the epitome of idiocy.
In not reading the notes, you've managed to waste at least three people's time:
2) The person you're speaking with
3) The person that wrote the notes
4) The person who added to the notes (if anybody did)
This then would be the epitome of two things: Idiocy and inefficiency.
Yet these are the same people who bitch when in the checkout que at the store because the cashier is 'taking too long.' Or they're talking with the Customers and are 'wasting time' according to management and/or other Customers.
But these are the same 'Customer Service Reps' that can't bother to read the damn notes.
This is not rocket science, folks. It honestly isn't.
I promise that the next person that calls here that doesn't read the notes is gonna be pointed right back to this entry. And then they're gonna get ripped a new one.
The notes are there for a reason. If you can't be bothered to read them, you deserve what you get.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
As has been predicted, it's now time for the blame game to begin. According to critics of the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) the fault belongs firmly on their shoulders, according ot the New York Times. (*)
" Chicago’s last-place finish in the I.O.C. voting on Friday in Copenhagen was the latest blow in a year marked by the departure of major sponsors, layoffs at U.S.O.C. headquarters, controversy over the salary of the acting chief executive, and the failed plan for an Olympic television network. (Link is from the New York Times and is left intact.)
" “Before we think about putting forth another Olympic city for a Games possibility, we’ve got to deal with some outstanding issues that are not going to go away,” said Mike Plant, who serves on the U.S.O.C.’s 10-member board and traveled to Copenhagen as part of the Chicago delegation. “I think that certainly there will be some dialogue that’s going to take place in the next couple of weeks — or certainly in short order.” "
But there's also this link the "Chicago Sun-Times"(**) article where the blame is laid firmly at the feet of President Bush?!?
" Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentment likely played a role in Chicago's Olympic bid dying in the first round Friday.
" President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years, they said. "
Say it isn't so, O! But it goes further:
" State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw firsthand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro. "I feel in my gut that this vote today was political and mean-spirited," she said. "
"...political and mean-spirited..." Um, yeah. Whatever.
I REALLY wish I had permission to post one of comments on their site, but it was written by Geoff King and was written on 3-OCT-2009 (today) at 6:17pm CDT.
The gist of the comment was that the Obamas gave emotional appeals which work well on Oprah but fall short on the International stage. Mr King also said they were good for "ego gratification."
Just remember, according to Chicago's 'leaders' this is President Bush's fault.
(*) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/sports/04usoc.html
(**) - http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1804170,CST-NWS-olyresent03.article#
And here's a link to the story that started it all: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall#
" Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold." "
The "violators" are the people who don't sign up for ObamaCare.
According to this New York Times blog http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/debating-done-now-comes-a-budget-work-up-before-voting-on-the-baucus-bill/
there has been a relaxing of the penalties for failing to buy ObamaCare:
" My colleagues, Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes, who followed the committee proceedings through the wee hours of the morning, report some of the crucial changes that were made to the bill in the final session, including an easing of penalties the new law would require for people who fail to obtain health insurance. " (Link is theirs and is left intact.)
By following that link (above) we end up here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/health/policy/03health.html?_r=1&hp
which states: " Before it finished work at 2:15 a.m. Friday, the committee voted to reduce penalties on people who go without insurance. The maximum penalty for a family was cut to $800, from $1,900, and it would be phased in gradually from 2014 to 2017. "
OK...so, it reduces the penalty from $1,900 for a family down to $800. But it still says nothing about prison time, so it's a guess if you still go to jail for failing to buy ObamaCare.
The MSM, oddly enough, didn't really report on the JAIL provision, except for Fox News. The WTMJ story started with this line: " Undoubtedly, this would be dismissed as more right-wing fear-mongering, except that it has been confirmed in writing. " (This was a link that led back to the Politico article. The link was removed.)
But that's what the Dems wanted. Don't buy ObamaCare, go to jail. No update on the jail provision, however.
Is this the 'change' you wanted?
Friday, October 2, 2009
You'll notice, I hope, the ellipses (the three periods "...") in the title. Those are, I believe, the most important words. The IOC didn't mean to do this, but to many Democrats, that's what it's going to be. The IOC, in the Democrat's mind, meant to humiliate Obama. Butlet's read a bit from this article:
" Rio de Janeiro is to host the first Olympic Games in South America." And warm congratulations should go to the "City of God."
" International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge made the announcement in Copenhagen today, to the bitter humiliation of Barack Obama.
" The U.S. president was embarrassed on the world stage after the IOC rejected his very personal bid for the 2016 Olympic Games to be hosted in his home town of Chicago. "
Ok...that should sum up the article right there. But already on CNN, one of their 'unbiased' 'reporters' was very nearly in tears. Tears. That's unbiased reporting? Shocked disbelief I'll give you, but tears?? Come on.
One of the Chicago papers' on-line edition had "O No!" And Rush was ... well. Rush was Rush. I think he didn't think the "mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama" rap of indoctrination (Google this, you'll find it) in a public school really helped. (As an aside, if you really needed any more reasons to homeschool, there you go. It's about indoctrination these days. It's the Chicagoland way.)
I would've liked the United States to have been the host for the 2016 Games. But go to Michelle Malkin's site (http://michellemalkin.com) and read about the corruption in Chi-town to try to get the Games. It'll leave you wondering where the MSM is. Out to lunch perhaps, since they couldn't be bothered to report any of it.
" The billboard reads, "How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die." There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign." (Link is KCTV5's and is left intact)
Waiting for the screams of "RAAACIST!!!"
I've never been an Obama fan. I'll admit that. I've spoken out against him from day one and I'll admit that too. I'll also admit that our Friday group got a bit "giddy" when we learned that Obama's Chicago had lost the Olympics.
But I'm of two minds to this. First, the US could've used the Olympics. But you know that in the corruption culture that's in DC now, the Democrats would've used this as a victory to push through even more liberalism.
This next is from Michelle Malkin's site and, I think, sums it up quite well:
" Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.
" This is a big win and a massive relief for taxpayers. But Chicago cronies are not going to take this well. Gird your loins.
" Who will be first to cry RAAAAAACIST? Well, it will be a little awkward to play the race card after liberal critics of the Games filed a civil rights complaint against the Chicago 2016 committee for racial discrimination yesterday. But count on the Team Obama grievance-mongers to play it anyway." (*)
There is a lot there, so let's examine this. "...Obama's giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings." Well, yes. Remember the Drudge Report's banner: "THE EGO HAS LANDED"
And, Ms Malkin's right that somebody, Janeane Garofalo perhaps, is going to play the "RAAACIST!" card. As in "Well, the IOC simply couldn't bear to have Chicago win because Barack Obama's black. That's all this is." This is following Ms Garofalo's 'logic' that those of us who supported (and still do support) the Tea Parties are because Mr Obama's black.
Give me a flippin' break. And yes, Ms Obama did say it was a "sacrifice" to go there to pitch for Chicago. (**) Here's THAT headline: "Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids." Um...yeah. Some sacrifice.
(*) - http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/the-noble-%e2%80%9csacrifice%e2%80%9d-of-michelle-obama/
(**) - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michelle-Obama-Its-a-sacrifice-to-travel-to-Europe-to-pitch-for-the-Olympics--For-Oprah-and-the-president-too--But-were-doing-it-for-the-kids-62928957.html#
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Sept 24, 2009: Issue #3 is a proposed Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will permit the construction of a total of four (4) casinos, one each in the cities of Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. These would be built at a pre-determined (already determined) location. (1)
There have been many claims on both sides of this issue, both in defense of and in opposition to this proposed amendment; and if you’ve been anywhere near a radio or TV lately, you’ve more than likely been exposed to these adverts. But as Detective Sgt. Joe Friday (as played by Jack Webb) once famously said:
“No, there’s one thing you left out.”
So here are some facts.
First: The proposed amendment would create four first-class casinos in the State of Ohio. This is true, provided that the Gilbert Group (backing these proposed casinos) doesn’t back out of the project – as they did in a similar project in Kansas City.
Second: The casinos would create 34,000 Ohio jobs. This is misleading. First, it would create 34,000 jobs, but the source of this number makes no distinction between full-time jobs and part-time jobs. (2) What’s worse, that 34,000 jobs includes the 19,000 construction jobs which would be needed to build them. It only creates 15,000 permanent jobs. But let’s look at these jobs:
22% are food service or preparation. They pay $19,500.
20% are gaming dealers or slot key. They pay $21,700.
14% are machine servicers, cashiers or other gaming service. These pay $22,900
This accounts for a total of 56% of all jobs. Contrast this with the median household income in Columbus - $42,253.
Third: Under Issue #3 these casinos would be required to pay a 33% tax on all revenues generated. This is higher than most other businesses. (3) While factually accurate, this is also misleading. This amount, 33%, is below the average of casinos located outside of Atlantic City, Reno, or Las Vegas. And it is far below the average paid in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In fact, in Maryland, Penn National agreed to a 67% tax rate on its new casino. (4,5)
Fourth: Provide $200 million in state job training to put Ohioans back to work. But nowhere in the Amendment does it state that it would require the casino operators to hire Ohioans. In fact, there are already radio adverts in New Jersey and Las Vegas asking for licensed, qualified operators who would be willing to relocate to Ohio. And our cost-of-living is far less than Las Vegas, Reno … or Atlantic City. (6)
Fifth: It would require each initial licensed casino operator to pay a $50 million dollar fee to be used for training. In other words, $50 million per casino. Since there would be four casinos, this would generate $200 million total. (6) However, this $50 million fee is far less than a similar casino in Illinois, which is paying a $400 million fee per casino. In Massachusetts, state officials there may be asking a fee of $500 million for each of two casinos. Total - $1 billion. (4)
Lastly, the proponents (those in favour) of Issue #3 are stating that it will not affect “charity nights” at the casinos. This is just plain wrong. Gambling in the State of Ohio falls under the purview of and is governed by the Ohio Revised Code. Specifically, section 2915.02. More specifically, section 2915.02D(1)(b). (7)
There can be no doubt that our great state, Ohio, is suffering along with the rest of our great Country in the midst of this economic downturn. Of that, there can be no doubt whatsoever. While technically any job is better than none, there are far too many things about Issue #3 that give me pause to allow me to vote for it.
However, this article is not about my personal opinion, it is about as Joe Friday said “The facts.” I believe in this instance that a clear open-minded evaluation of the facts will lead you to vote no on Issue #3.
NOTE: Some of these links are direct links to .PDF files. I have nothing against .PDF files, but you will need a reader that can handle these files. The most popular is Adobe Acrobat, and can be downloaded or updated here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/ Where the link is to an actual .PDF file, there will be a red, bold asterisk (*) following the link.
1) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-text.pdf (*)
3) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-official_argument_for.pdf (*)
6) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-final_language.pdf (*)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Specifically, Sen. Kennedy's passing.
I'll be the first to admit that I was vehemently opposed to nearly everything Sen. Kennedy stood for. I'll admit it. Frankly, I'd be lying if I said I agreed with nearly anything he stood for.
But to learn that he'd passed saddened me. I didn't agree with him, but I did respect him. Sen. Kennedy stood his ground on the issues he believed in. He didn't waver and he didn't compromise his principles.
You don't find that too often these days. Case in point - 'Benedict' Arlen Spectre (D-PA) who switched from Republican to Democrat so that he could stay in Washington ... and admitted it.
Sen. Kennedy wasn't like that. He didn't switch sides and he didn't pull punches. And even though I disagreed with him, I did respect him.
My thoughts and prayers go to the Kennedy family at this difficult time. There aren't too many 'good' ways to die, unless one counts passing away peacefully in one's sleep. But to suffer as Sen. Kennedy did ... at least he's no longer suffering.
He was a liberal lion in the Senate, a stalwart who didn't compromise. He will be missed.
The last time I sent a politician an email I got back a cookie-cutter reply (ie; form letter) that didn't address a single issue I'd raised. And, I expected the same to be true in this instance.
You can therefore imagine my surprise when I received a reply from Rep. Jordan that actually addressed the issues I'd raised. I was honestly surprised.
Many politicians send form letter replies to their constituents when they're contacted via email, and to be frank I honestly didn't expect a reply from Rep. Jordan. As already stated, I'm NOT in his District.
Nonetheless, Rep. Jordan took the time to write back and address the issues I'd raised. It wasn't a form letter, nor an attempt to 'blow me off.'
Frankly, that says a great deal about him. If he is elected to the State Senate, I would honoured to have him represent me.
Monday, August 24, 2009
" It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.
" Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.
" Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”. (emphasis added)
"Right-hand man?" What, pray tell, is so offensive about that?
"What about us lefties? What about 'left-hand man'?"
"Now just one damn minute. What about us womyn (women)? What about us? You sexist bastard!"
I'll freely admit it. I'm Rick's right-hand man. He looks to me when asking what other people are thinking. Of course, since this is 'just' our local group, nobody really gives a shit, right?
Um..... Mr Obamessiah, have you checked your latest poll numbers lately? Have you?
It turns out that Rick and I really aren't among your adoring masses. And in spite of what your lapdog David Letterman recently said, we aren't "American Taliban."
I haven't murdered anybody recently. Neither has Rick. We haven't produced propaganda videos as have the true Taliban. But I guess you'd miss that since you're in New York. What? Nothing to say when confronted with the facts?
Here's my all-time favourite quote:
"Go fuck yourself. And then kill yourself before I have to."
Movie? Oh, please. You can do better than that.'
**A note to the left-wing idiots reading this. I am NOT advocating violence against Mr Letterman nor anybody else. But if you idiots can call us names, then fairness dictates that we also must be able to, ne?