January 2007 – Page 3 – third world county

January 22, 2007January 21, 2007

Nearly Back Online/OTP

Well, after 9.5 days without electricity, we now have (*knock on wood*) power restored… but still no cable TV (WW needs the Weather Channel! :-)) or broadband (it’s cable, duh), so all our connection to “the world” is down to one usually semi-unreliable POTS line connection and a slooooowwww 28.8 dialup.

So, make this a good one, folks. This is an open trackbacks post. Hit me with your best shots, cos I’m depending on you to bring me back up to speed on what’s going on in “the world” OK?

Just link to this post and track back.

If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.

If you want to host your own linkfests but have not yet done so, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance. The FAQ there is very helpful in understanding linkfests/open trackbacks.

Before I turn WW’s computer back over to her for classwork, here’s a quick lil tip for Windows users who’re too lazy to do regular maintenance …or even just folks with better things to do than spend time running one standalone program after another to keep their Windows install working properly.

Here’s the deal: like it, love it, indifferent or hate it, Windows is here to stay for a while on most folks’ desktops. And it’s the target of choice, for many reasons, for malware of all kinds. In addition, Windows installations “cruft up” something fierce after only a few days or at most weeks of use and become, if not unusable, at the very least less than optimally-configured as a result.

What to do? Well, since converting to Linux is still out for most ordinary users (in spite of the “Aunt Tilly” friendliness of some recent distros) and switching to Mac OS X(.xx) is just trading for a different straightjacket–one that is apparently safer in part because it’s a more restrictive straightjacket–then maintaining a relatively cruft free and malware free Windows install is pretty much necessary. Until recently, that’s meant using several different products to achieve that goal, something that can be daunting or simply too time-consuming for folks who just want to get their web cruising, media management and document creation done.

Sure, Symantec and others have touted their integrated security and computer management/cleanup products for some time, but none of the “big boys'” products have appealed to me to the degree that I’d recommend them to clients. In particular, all of them, including the new Microsoft Onecare, have had serious flaws in execution or feature set that have made them “no deals” for me, and what I cannot justify for my own use, I cannot recommend to others.

Recently, however, I’ve found a product that, while lacking a software firewall and anti-virus, has most of the other features I have recommended several standalone products to fulfill, and fulfills those features quite well. That’s at least a step in the right direction for lazy–or just busy–folks who just cannot make the time to run several different computer management/anti-malware apps every day.

That’s a pic of Advanced Windows Care2 (PE) in action. (Yeh, I’ve blanked out any even vague identifiers that might peg which machine I was running it on. :-)) I’ve run it and several different apps that perform the same functions in comparison runs and had surprisingly similar results. With Adaware SE Personal and Spybot Search and Destroy scanning for spyware and startup issues, Fixit Utilities 5 scanning for registry errors and cruft files, for example, I found pretty much the same issues that Advanced Windows Onecare2 (PE) found with a one click, one pass effort. The general Windows and network optimizing suggestions were icing on the cake.

For disk defragging, personal firewall and anti-virus protection I’ll still have to continue to recommend (mostly) separate applications, but for those who find running multiple apps to scan for registry errors, spyware and other security issues to be a pain, I feel comfortable recommending IObit’s Advanced Windows Onecare, now. The “Personal Edition” is even free for home/private use.

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, Big Dog’s Weblog, basil’s blog, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

January 21, 2007

“Your’e Fired”

By: Angel

A Mus–lim woman police officer has sparked a new debate by refusing to shake hands with Britain’s most senior police chief for religious reasons.

I cannot shake your hand, sir. I’m a Mu–slim and you’re a man

In addition to refusing a traditional congratulatory handshake from Sir Ian, the WPC – who wore a traditional Mus–lim hij–ab headscarf – also declined to be photographed with him as she did not want the picture used for ‘propaganda purposes’.

“There was a great deal of discussion about it afterwards. People were asking how the hell is she going to make an arrest if she refuses to touch men.”

Ah. Yes. Just the person you want in charge of Public Safety.

Um. O.K.

This is the uniform, toots and these are the the job requirements. And, by the way, being a police officer, guess what.. they do include touching people you’re not related to.
Don’t like it?
Don’t take the flipping job.

But, not the Dhi-mmi countries. They have another solution:

First, they begin by making allowances with the uniform.
They change the uniform to “accomodate”

Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon said Victoria Police wanted to attract more women and more recruits from culturally diverse backgrounds that reflected the community.

Making hij–ab part of Victoria Police uniform.

Now, they make allowances with rules and professional courtesy and decency.
Not to mention that by not shaking hands with the head of the force, this “traitor” to her policeforce, fails to respect the very uniform she wears.

And, let us not rule out that what we have here sweet friends, is yet another Flying Im-am moment.

You know…A set up. A pre-announced, staged drama, to create first controversy , then the usual Libs coming to “save” them and grant them even more “privilege.”

I have a bulletin for Mz. Muzlim who refuses to respect her most senior police chief and colleagues. This job involves interfacing with the public and should not exactly be given to people who refuse to interface with “some” members of the public, at her own arrogant discretion.

Oh, and have you forgotten the Muzzlim policeman who refused to guard the Israeli embassy? Picky Picky aren’t they.

But more importantly, and adding insult to injury, she refuses to have her picture taken because it “would be used for propaganda purposes.”?!

If this doesn’t demostrate a clear antipathy towards her supposed service, superiors and duty, then nothing does.

Where’s Trump when ya need him. Why was she not fired on the spot.

But fear not y’all.. This was all predicted

Moderate British Mu–slims in the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service will one day revolt against the system to “crush it from within“, according to Om–ar Ba–kri Mo-ha–mmed, the notorious Is–lamic extremist.

“When you start to ask Musl–ims to join your Army and your police you are making a grave mistake. That British Mus–lim who joins the police today will one day read the Ko–ran and will have an awakening,” he said.

But, alas, this is the U.K. and Europe we speak of.
The social “P.C.” engineers and bureaucratic apathy and dhim-mitude have unleashed an infectious plague there, which is steadily heading in our direction.

(Muzlim cab driver anyone?..no dogs, and no alcohol you infid-el!)

But fear not, no doubt she will be vindicated and then she can police only women and her immediate male family members. Yea. That’ll work.

Crossposted at : Woman Honor Thyself

January 19, 2007

Why Do Our Young Go to the Sound of the Battle?

Today’s political, military and geo-political landscapes are a muddy, quicksand like consistency it seems some days. Little clarity, lots of “suction” to keep the progress from occurring. From Hugh Hewitt’s radio show tonight, a moment of clarity, the words of a young man. His words, those of a freshly minted “butter bar” provide the answer to the title of the post, and also convey some wisdom his elders might be wise to take counsel of.

Sadly, these words, most likely would have been doomed to being read by a few hundred or so people in passing on Lt Mark Daly’s MySpace page, but as the result of his death in combat on 1/15/2007, his readership will increase dramatically. Here they are. Pause to consider Mark says things not popular, yet in a professional and forthright manner:

Why I Joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam’s government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba’ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq’s neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this. Is this why I joined? Yes. Much has been said about America’s intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as “oil” or “terrorism,” favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day “humanists” who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow “global citizens” to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn’t confront the Ba’ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America’s intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow “humanists” and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America’s historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America’s initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America’s moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined. In digesting this posting, please remember that America’s commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children’s lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don’t forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don’t overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don’t cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include “Good Luck” Mark Daily

Mark saw something we have missed or maybe dismissed, in the current debate on the “surge” and defunding the war. He notes that action gets things done. He shut up (about his views held before), suited up and stepped up when it came time. I know there are many more like him. May those ones come home victorious and when peace is at hand in the Middle East.

Rest in peace, Soldier.

January 19, 2007January 19, 2007

The “Fairness Doctrine”

“It is a small mind that tries to make the subjective an absolute.” – Me 1/19/2007

That being said, I’m entering the stream of consciousness mode, for this discussion will have legs. Some ground work is necessary, and I’ll openly admit, I have not done “due diligence” and located the actual documents from Congress from the late 40s that seem to be the foundation for the currently brewing discussion in our Nation.

My opening quote is to describe a philosophy I picked up from Wesley E. Jordan, Jr. He told us once to not present statements using subjective terms in our briefings, but to present the numbers (or facts) and “smart people will be able to figure it out.” There were two parts of that approach: The first was to allow the expertise and experience of others factor in (e.g. someone might see 67% this year as a vast improvement, because they knew it was 28% two years ago, but you weren’t around for that time frame), and you could also flow with the mood if the person you were briefing jumped up and said “THAT’S GREAT (HORRIBLE)!” Yes, a political dodge, but, at least you acknowledged that things can be more detailed than you are aware of and subjectivity reigns supreme in just about every venue of life. Get over it, it’s not fair….

So now we open a discussion in the public debate arena on “fairness,” but only in “media” and it’s being led by the Democratic Party. Great. First off, I’ll say the devil is in the details and I now prognosticate that the Democratic Party, if they “have their way” will, once more, fall into the deadly trap they walk into over and over and over (but I digress).

The trap? Precedent. Over 9 months of intensive academic work on a degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies, I walked away with this understanding: “It’s always (note the absolute tone) dangerous (not deadly, just dangerous, worthy of serious consideration and, I’d venture to say, a healthy appreciation for the risk management discipline in cases where physical safety is involved) to set a precedent.” That’s my line. Use it if you need to, but I swear by it, for I believe I have a comprehension of human behavior that is unassailable in this area. Why is it dangerous? Because, just as feminists have found out in the case of sexual harassment and divorce law: “Because you never know when you’ll have to live by it yourself.” (That’s the second part of my understanding of human frailties).

This brings me to the understanding that the efforts to apply “fairness” will necessarily provide lots of entertainment value in the field of unintended consequences. If the Democrats, in their efforts to moderate (being kind) or squelch (less polite terminology) or silence (maybe over the top word?) any critics by legislating “equal time,” let them see the possible firestorm of response that will bring their way. The current concern among conservative talk show hosts, notably Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and Russ Limbaugh, is the effort is not to make things fair, but to silence them, meaning the conservative talk show hosts, which dominate the RF spectrum was call AM Radio.

If I was them, I’d push my listeners to do everything they could to get this put back into law, and then, let the games begin…..You have to remember, fairness is about a two way exchange, not one side taking over. Has Nancy Pelosi managed to consider that? Much more to be discussed there…

There are many aspects of the details here to debate. on the Laura Ingraham show the day before yesterday, Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was on. He said this was a revival of the 1949 law, that came about as a result of the people seeing how the media in the nations of the Axis prior to WWII had a large effect on the initiation of the war, and the Fairness Doctrine was an effort to keep from having such narrowness being a major factor in our society. Noble concept, executed by humans (and, therein, lies the pragmatic realities, but…more later in that vein). Without doing my homework, but knowing some history of the world in the 1930-40s era, I’d venture to say that “media” (back them essentially AM Radio) in the nations of our enemies was, in fact, not commercial, privately held, entities, but departments controlled directly and completely by the governments of those countries. If anyone else knows something to the contrary, please leave it in the comments. This being the premise, then to apply a rule set to American “media,” in order to keep from having this happen here is, to be polite, a stretch of logic that boggles the mind. To be less polite, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that then, let alone now, that our government has that degree of control over “THE MEDIA!”

If you disagree with me, please send me the name of the person today who is the direct equivalent of this man pictured below:

Continue reading “The “Fairness Doctrine””

January 16, 2007

Be HonesT ’bout Po-rn

by:Angel

Pornography has become big business in the United States. You no longer have to go places to find it; it now finds you. Once confined to Ã¢â‚¬Å“dirty old menÃ¢â‚¬Â and seedy areas of town, pornography has now penetrated the hotel room and home. The Internet and cell phone have made pornography accessible everywhere, all the time.

In a manner that the older generation of Americans finds scandalous, porn has become socially acceptable and lost its moral stigma.

The liberal defense of obscenity and pornography began many decades ago as a defense of great works of literature and of free speech.

It began as a defense of books like James JoyceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ulysses, FlaubertÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Madame Bovary, and D.H. LawrenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Lady ChatterlyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Lover. But now some liberal advocates insist that all forms of sexual explicitness are equally deserving of legal protection and that no restriction of obscenity or pornography should be allowed.

Groups like the ACLU have taken the approach that pornography rights, like the rights of accused criminals, are best protected at their outermost extreme. This means is that the more foul the obscenity, the harder liberals must fight to allow it.

Pornography — The Real Perversion

Hustler features a good deal of gross and repellent material, such as its parody of Jerry Falwell having s-ex with his grandmother, or its picture of a woman being processed through a meat grinder.

The pornographer generally knows that he is a sleazy operator…. Typically such men do not even try and defend the social value of what they do, other than to point out that there is a demand for it. It is only the ACLU and its supporters who celebrate the pornographer as a paragon of the First Amendment and a contemporary social hero.

The liberal defense of pornography is even more perverted than the pornography itself.

The worst obscurities from which we suffer do not come from without, my sweet friends. They come from within.
So I implore upon you, let us not deceive ourselves about this.

Pornography is maliciously designed for women to be seen as objects.

Women have been seen in costume, or reference, even like an animal..the infamous.. Play-boy “bunny”, yet no one admits that this is tantamount to being reduced to an animal, because in pornography, it simply doesn’t matter.

A woman is always an object: An object of male desire.
She has no name. She is a “bunny” or a body part. And a dispensable one at that.

That is why it is so easy for men (and even duped women) to rationalize frequenting strip clubs, because, after all, the girl or woman is just a pair of legs or breasts, and supposedly, she is there of her own free will.

But no sane man or woman want their daughter “performing” like that, so why is it sanctioned to support someone else’s daughter in her own spiritual and psychological demise?

Pornography has always violated women indirectly and directly.

Women, who refuse to tolerate it or engage in it are still affected by the sexual inequality that it effectively maintains.
Consider the entertainment industry. Women in music videos are portrayed as “whores” and called “hoes.”

Men and boys are portrayed as using these women in much the same way they display their “bling”, or car.

For young girls to even embark upon a career in film or the arts, they compete with those girls who pornify themselves, and are thus perceived as having the “edge” with men.

Sexual mistreatment and rape are legitimized. Not to mention that even the “normal” s-ex they portray is so incredulously unrealistic and are not the things that women like, or for the most part that women want.

Sorry to disappoint those who justify the whole “se-x industry” as innocent “enjoyment”, but the vast majority of women in the “industry”..are victims of torture, death threats, humiliation, sodimization, and rape. Look at stats for women trafficking if you remain a naysayer.

And for all those duped into believing that women who tolerate pornography, or strip clubs are “sexually liberated women”, that is the bag of goods that pornographers sold to the public, and that the public eagerly bought.

Perhaps some guy hopes that one day the girl of his dreams could be as Ã¢â‚¬Å“liberatedÃ¢â‚¬Â as that girl on the screen too eh. Yes, she must strive to please at all costs, even personal costs of her self respect and her very humanity.

It may be through a video or more likely through a computer screen, but make no mistake, pornography is a technologically sophisticated method of trafficking women. (men and children too.)

Pornography makes female objectification and subordination er-otic, and se-xy.

If one’s masculine values find a way to justify that…I would re-think just how much of a “man” you truly are.

Crossposted at: WomanHonorThyself

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31