Protests due to Koran Burning Kill Additional 13 People

The demonstrations continue. Casualties have now risen to a total of 20. Three suicide bombers, disguised as women, tried to enter a NATO base. One was killed. The other two detonated their bombs. 


Afghanistan President Karzai suggests the solution is to bring Terry Jones, the pastor who burned the Koran, to "justice." After he stoked resentment by disclosing the Jones' actions to the public's attention.


The UN personnel killed yesterday are now identified as being Norwegian, Romanian and Swedish.


It is now time to get out of the middle east. There is no upside for us to remain.


Source: Associated Press CNN hasn't updated their site. Fox News has one word link to a page with a variety of stories about the protest. The New York Times doesn't seem to have updated their earlier story about the protests.

The Hate Us for Our Freedoms; or, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day – the Sequel…

When the line, “They hate us for our freedoms” was first uttered by George Bush, (jr), I laughed. Who would bother to hate another for their freedoms? Every man, every society, every religion in the world has the ability and the responsibility to work to ensure their own freedoms. I thought some people might be envious of our ‘freedoms,’* but, ‘hate’ us? No way.

I am beginning to think Bush might have, unknowingly, shared an insight into a small group of people, controlled by a few religious leaders, that do hate us for our freedoms. Or, at the very least, get really pissed off and kill people when we exercise them

The lead on Fox News this morning was a piece about the killing yesterday, in Mazar-I-Sharif, Afghanistan, of four Nepalese and three Rumanian guards working for the United Nation’s mission there. {Or, least it was the lead. Now the lead is the hole in the airliner story.]

The New York Times and CNN.com reported the killings as current events, but did not lead with their accounts, as Fox News did.  All the reports contain, essentially, the same information.

The mob that killed the UN Peace Keepers were angry because of the burning of a Koran by non-denominational evangelical Pastor Terry Jones in Florida on 20MAR2011.  Jones is also remembered by some, (and, apparently, despised by quite few more), for his infamous threat to burn a large number of Korans last summer.

Okay, so here comes the commentary….

I am sick and tired of this bullshit. No one is more tolerant of different  religions than I am. This was a not a religious act. It was an act of criminals, plain and simple. I am not tolerant of criminals.

It seems that some religious authorities, (or, at least, the Imams who provoked this action.), in Afghanistan fail to understand that you don’t get to riot and kill people when your feelings get hurt. No matter how much your feelings get hurt. It seems, every time, something like this happens, there is some Imam who takes advantage of the situation to further their own agenda by inciting their followers to commit acts of violence, up to and including murder. Am I the only one who finds this totally bizarre, unacceptable  and antithetical to the very concept of civilization? I hope not.

From what I know of Terry Jones, he sounds like a jerk. He seems like a reactionary after his 15 minutes of fame. His attempt at 15 minutes of fame, we are led to believe by some, have led to, at least, two riots and seven murders. 

For this reason Mr. Jones has been asked to stop exercising his constitutional right to free speech by the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. 

I say, so what if what Jones says hurts the feeling of some zealot who feels that violence against the west solves all his/her problems? Or, more likely, likes their** ability to provoke violence as a measure of their own power.

Some say we must give up our constitutional right to free speech to appease two guys with AK47s squatting around a campfire somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan and Iraq, (coming soon, two more guys squatting around a campfire in Libya), whose Imam will tell them to start killing people. 

To those people I say, get a clue. Appeasement doesn’t work. Take, for example, the German take over of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. English Prime Minister Chamberlain and  French President Daladier sold out Czechoslovakian President Benes in an effort to appease Hitler. It didn’t work. Hitler continued his policy of Lebensraum and invaded Poland in 1939. Followed by France, the Low Countries, Denmark, Russia and most of eastern Europe, etc. As this clearly shows, the only problem with appeasement is – and here is where history is unquestionably clear – there is no appeasing intolerant tyrants.

The Imam’s who provoked this riot are responsible for it. Jones is an ass, but his speech is constitutionally protected. I may not like him or what he stands for, but I will fight to the death for his right to say it.

In a recent post on the forums at Slate.com about a new law that is being considered in the Florida legislature to outlaw taking pictures of farms, (Yes, that’s right, farms. You know, dirt and building materials arranged in a practical manner. That kind of farm.), a fellow poster vehemently posited, (in direct response to my statements about what constituted a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy,’ as interpreted by the SCOTUS), that prohibiting the photography of a farm was reasonable, even if ‘it’ had no reasonable expectation of privacy, because it might make someone uncomfortable.

He*** called me a “Constitutional Fundi” (Fundi, apparently, meaning fundamentalist), because of my reliance on an ‘ancient text’ – the Constitution of the US. He added that I was just as bad as religious fundamentalists, because I refused to change with ‘time and circumstances.’

First, I thanked him for calling me a constitutional fundamentalist. I am a constitutional fundamentalist. I believe every word in the Constitutional of the United States. Even the ones I don’t agree with. And reminded him that farms have no constitutional right to privacy; in fact, they have no rights at all. He took exception to that, too.

This type of response to the reasonable assertion of our constitutional liberties threatens the very existence of our civil rights. He is entitled to his opinion – however bizarre and unreal – but he fails to realize that constitutional rights are a hedge on how far the government can intrude into our personal lives. They protect the rights of the few over the tyranny of the many. The  Constitution of the United States is the single greatest living document the world has seen in the last 300 years.

But, to appease an Imam sitting in the “Blue Mosque” in a backward country with no real functioning government, we should give up the rights granted us by the Constitution of the United States. We should silence people like Terry Jones and anyone else that would say something that would upset one of these Imam’s. (To me, it seems anything said may upset them, so we are not safe in saying anything.) In other words, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan is telling us to give up our free speech rights to appease a pair of un-appeasable tyrants.

I don’t think so. In fact, I know so. We cannot give up our constitutional rights to these intolerant religious charlatans. We need to draw a bright line between us and them. Between a country founded and governed by its citizens and country that has not significantly advanced in the last 500 years of repressive religious rule. We should not stop doing what makes us “American” for two guys squatting around a campfire in the mountains of Afghanistan for fear they will be directed to kill someone in retaliation for our expression.

I am not saying that everyone should act and think like Americans. I am perfectly happy – nay, enthusiastic – that they can worship in their own way and live as they choose. I believe they have the intrinsic human right to do both. They can put on saris and dance on a hilltop worshiping the moon, for all I care.

What I will not tolerate is them killing people when someone says/does something they don’t like. 

It seems to me the solution is for NATO to withdraw all of its forces from Afghanistan. The UN should stop providing humanitarian aid. All NGOs should immediately leave. In other words, we should leave Afghanistan - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Darfur, Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, Palestine and on and on - to their own devices. 

When people get tired of following around these ‘Imams’ and blindly doing what they say, they will assert themselves and overthrow what they see as an oppressive regime. Two months ago, I would have said that might take a little time. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen have since proved me wrong. When a critical mass of people rises up against a tyrannical government, change is given – in a very short time.

We owe the people of Afghanistan nothing. Afghanistan was among the worst ideas of a man who history will record as right up there among the top two worst presidents ever to lead this country. They don’t want us there** **In fact, they are willing to die to make us leave. 

So, we should respect their wishes and leave. Posthaste or as soon thereafter as possible. Leave them to live in the mess of their own creation. When they get tired of it – like the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya – they will rise up and end it. It is not up to us to end it for them. They have to do it for themselves. And I say we should leave as quickly as possible and let them do it. Or not. Depending upon what they want.

Now, to the point of Let’s Draw Mohammed Day – The Sequel.

Most of you are familiar with the “Let’s Draw Mohammed” FaceBook page created in May of 2010 in reaction to death threats directed at the creators of the South Park cartoon show. Mohammed had been depicted on their program wearing a bear suit so they didn’t have to, actually, show a picture of Mohammed. One thinks this is a rational commentary on the totally bizarre idea that no one can draw a picture of Mohammed.

The bear suit didn’t work. It still pissed off a couple of guys who told the creators of South Park that they would end up like Theo Van Gogh. Mr. Van Gogh was murdered in Holland after he made a film about Islam’s mistreatment of women.

The Wikipedia entry about the event is here. 

It is my conclusion that we should have another “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” We should directly exercise our constitutional rights to free speech. No matter who we might offend.

And we should leave Islam to wallow in the pit of its own making.

Unlike the cartoonist behind “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” I will not go underground when violence is threatened to silence expression jihadests do not like. I understand why she did what she did. Although it is not what I would have done, I respect her for making the choice she felt she had to make.


I, on the other hand, am willing to make a stand in defense of my civil rights. I will not let a tyrant drive me into hiding.

* Which, ironically, are shrinking by the minute.

**I am trying to use gender neutral pronouns, but I may slip. At any regard, I am not know whether it is possible for a woman to be an Imam and/or if there are any female Imams. The two Imams involved this murderous act were men.

***This is a gender neutral form of ‘he’ since I don’t know if the poster was male or female. Jeez, I hate political correctness.

****Unless, of course, you are the Karzai family or one of their cronies  who are making a large fortune by stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and quite a few of the things that are.

I was going to write a review of the Glock 35 today, events prevented that. So, maybe, tomorrow.

The biggest non-event of the day is that the Japanese reactors are leaking highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. The story was on the first page of CNN.com, this morning. Now I can't even find it on their site. It wasn't mentioned in this morning's New York Times email, either.

I hope someone is paying attention. I would hate to believe the energy companies are strong enough to go on with their plans to build more of these disasters in the US.

The Morality of Recruiting Children to Fight in Wars Over Resources

Yesterday, a discussion started over in Slate.com about a sister who was having a hard time handling people who criticized the wars in the middle east where her brother was fighting as a marine.


For a long time, I have felt that recruiting children to fight in wars by promising them money to go to school, is immoral. And that, until people stop volunteering to go to war, the wars will continue.


Here's my thoughts: 

This war has been incredibly well stage managed. No bodies coming home in flag draped coffins. No 'film at 11" coverage of blood and gore. No draft. Going out of our way not to offend those who have 'sensibilities' other than our own. Truly incredible micromanagement of the press.

And whatever you do, it is immoral to speak anything even slightly uncomplimentary about members of the military.

This war has been fought with no strategy; tactics either developed on the fly or left over from the cold war; with weapons that were designed to keep the Sovs from coming through the Fulda Gap; and absolutely no exit strategy. In other words, we are fighting this war with tools and tactics from the last war. We seem to have been doing this since Vietnam. We just want those suckers to line up in front of us so we can liberate them by shooting them. We are totally unprepared for an asymmetrical war - even though we fought one in Vietnam for 8, or so, years and have been fighting one in Afghanistan for 10 years.

We are engaging in another war in North Africa on the same terms we are using in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only didn't we learn from Vietnam, we are proving we didn't even learn anything from Iraq or Afghanistan. We still have no f*cking idea what we are doing. The results will be the same in Libya as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. 


Update: The New York Times reported this morning, (01APR2011), that the US may be backing off supplying arms to Libyan rebels. Let's hope so.

Doing the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. And we are clearly insane.

Third, we are doing this with an all volunteer army. We are recruiting children to go kill people and/or be killed for money to go to college.

We could stop this war, tomorrow, if these children joining the military stopped for a moment to consider what they are doing and if it is morally right to agree to kill people for money. Parents could speak up here, too. I doubt very many of them taught their children it was moral to kill people for money. When children decide to join the military, something magical happens to parents. They let their patriotism override their natural tendency to protect their children.

Once the 'all volunteer army' fails, the DoD would have to re-instate the draft. Or, at least, threaten to reinstate the draft. At that point, it would become more of a personal experience for everyone - whole groups of men would be disappearing from neighborhoods and coming home in flag draped coffins. Rich people, like the Bushies, would have to go into high gear finding ways to keep their children from having to go be killed in the desert by some guy hiding behind a rock with a 20 year old RPG.

In other words, if children stopped volunteering to kill people for money, this thing would be over in about a month. Given the improvements in social networking, the anti-draft/anti-war protests would make what happened during Vietnam look like ice cream socials. 

As long as people volunteer for the military, we will always find another country where we think it is in their best interest to bomb them back into the stone age. We just need to convince the children that it is wrong to kill people for money.

Stop volunteering. The war will stop shortly after that.

Same sentiment, different countries

Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. 
He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in [Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya] 
So put down your books and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? 
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is [Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya]; 
And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, 
Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die. 

With serious and heartfelt apologies to Country Joe & The Fish

The Reactors...

What is happening with those reactors?

The operators are, finally, admitting the obvious – that the Fukushima Dai-ichi plants are a total loss. "After pouring seawater on them ... I believe we cannot use them anymore," TEPCO chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata said. This was painfully clear to the rest of the world the minute they started using seawater to cool the reactors. Glad TEPCO finally got around to admitting the truth.

Seawater sampled near the reactors have the "highest levels yet" - over 3,000 times normal. Radiation has appeared in raw milk, produce and drinking water as far away as Tokyo.

Reports in this article confirm that plutonium was discovered in the soil outside the plant. Again, in quantities too low to hard people.

Meanwhile, the emperor and empress spent about an hour consoling a group of evacuees. Undoubtedly putting on a good face for PR. TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu wasn't there to console the evacuees, because he was in the hospital suffering from headaches and dizziness attributed to his hypertension. [At least, Mr. Shimizu isn't wishing he had his old life back.]

I remain unimpressed with TEPCO's handling of this mess. Their attempts at spin control haven't been very helpful, either. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Katsumata and Mr. Shimizu didn't know that the plants were ruined the minute they put seawater on them. This was pretty clear to everybody and should have been reported immediately. I am more than a little concerned that TEPCO, with the cooperation of the Japanese government, is not telling us what we really need to know. This is not a Japanese problem, this is a problem for the whole world. Our need to know surpasses TEPCO's need to spin this to protect their shareholders' investments, (TEPCO's stock has plummeted down 80% in recent days, so there isn't much left to protect).

Apparently, Afghanistan's Nuclear Weapons Program was a little further advanced than we'd hoped...

Osama Bin Laden, apparently, has about 130 nuclear weapons hidden in the US. That's right 130 nuclear weapons.


Please excuse me, I can't stop laughing...


The FBI thinks it might be a hoax. But, they aren't sure. So much for ICE's increased surveillance at the border and the TSA nazi's at American airports. Somehow, the dipshit got 130 nuclear weapons into the US and managed to plant them without anybody noticing. Damn we do need more cops.


Your tax dollars are at work investigating this new and dangerous threat from someone nobody has seen since the invasion of Afghanistan, 10 years ago.


I guess they still hate us for our freedoms...

What’s Up with Japan and those pesky nuclear reactors; Or who cares?

Today I hit the usual spots looking for some news on the disasters that are the Japanese nuclear reactors. I recalled hearing something  in the last couple of days about plutonium, (half life 8.08 x 10 to the seventh power, that's what, like 8 billion years? Somebody correct me if I am wrong.), being found in the ground or water outside one of the plants. 

Unfortunately, I guess plutonium really isn’t that big a story. Even though it will be with us for the next 8,080,000 years, (yes, folks, you read that right 8 billion years). I didn't even find any mention of it in more than a passing manner. Like, "Oh, in the interests of full disclosure, this house is built on ground contaminated with plutonium. Just thought we'd mention that."

What I did find was a puff piece about how our reactors compare to the Japanese reactors – in the third section of the Miami Herald. Slate did a nice piece on how no one can agree on how to measure radiation. 

Then Slate's "Hive" section shared solutions solicited from readers on how to solve the problem with the Japanese reactors. One reader suggested dropping the fuel rods into the ocean. Another reader suggested filling the core with sand. I am sooooo happy that Slate.com thinks crowd-sourcing is a good way to figure out how to avert such a monumental disaster.

In the New York Times, (I am still not going to pay to get through your paywall), Top Five Stories for the week, the only Japanese related article was one that showed aerial photos of the damage from the earthquake and tsumani.

So, what did make the news, today?

The Feds arrested 49 people on weapons and drug charges in Arizona. Sadly, none of the weapons they found were the weapons they let walk out of a Phoenix gun store and get trafficked to Mexico. Operation Gunwalk, continues to be Operation 'oh, shit we lost those guns and one of them was used to kill a Border Patrol Agent'.

As usual, the fact that the ATF didn't track these weapons is being blamed on lack of funding. Right, it had nothing to do with competence. Give us more money and we can more easily traffic weapons to Mexico is the cry from the ATF.

So, I guess I'll have to write about Libya and the unfolding disaster there. Also known as "Obama has no foreign policy, so don't expect much."

It appears that some people in Washington are getting worried about the CVs of some of the people we are giving weapons to. I am glad somebody is thinking about this, but wouldn't it have been better to think about this before we started handing out the AK47s and anti-armor missiles? Doesn't anyone remember us giving the Afghanis Stinger missiles and how well that worked out for us? Only now are people realizing that, maybe, the weapons are going to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah? [Will someone in the Obama administration get thrown in jail for material support of terrorism over this? Will Obama?]


Update: Go here for a more complete break down of just whom we are giving AKs to...

The New York Times reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admits the makeup of the rebels is still a "mystery".  A 'mystery'? This isn't a game of 'What's My Line'. We are talking about anti-tank and anti-armor weapons. Weapons that can be used against us. [Sort of like the M1A1 Abrahms tanks we let Egypt build.] Al Qaeda must be laughing their asses off right about now. We are, potentially, arming the same people who blew up the Twin Towers!

Most of the buzz is about Obama's speech last night. As I have no television, I have to turn to other web journalists, such as myself, for information on the speech. And, uniformly, the information is... ...well... ...confusing. Obama seems to have put forth a speech that is tailor made for what we are doing in Libya, while claiming it encompasses American foreign policy all over the world.

Quoting from the New York Times, here, Obama reportedly said, "He would take action, he said, if vital national security interests were at stake. He would consider it if economic interests were threatened, or if there was a humanitarian crisis so deep it could not be ignored. But in those two instances, he would hesitate unless there was international participation, and the cost was not too high."

In the same article in the Times, David J. Rothkopf, the author of “Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power,” interpreted, [my paraphrase], Obama's speech as saying we have "American Values" and we will defend those values, unless it is too big an inconvenience. Then we won't.

I have to agree with Mr. Rothkopf. We want to protect civilians. Protecting them from their own government is okay, too. But, if any sovereign nation decides to kill civilians, we are going to put them into the Hurt Locker. However, this doesn't apply to Afghanistan or Iraq, because, you know,  a couple of dead babies is nothing in the grand scheme of 'nation building'. 

You can, also, get away with killing civilians if you are on our 'side'. Which is a euphemistic way of saying, "An enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Then you can kill all the civilians you want. And we won't say a thing.

Slate.com's throw down on the President's speech was this, as they tried to describe Obama's foreign policy using his own words: 

"Muammar Qaddafi was about to slaughter the residents of Benghazi; the international community was asking for U.S. assistance, as were the anti-Qaddafi forces within Libya; allowing Qaddafi to crack down would have weakened the pro-freedom movements in other Middle Eastern and North African countries; the authority of the United Nations was in question."

Which says to me, "If we don't like you, we can bomb the shit out of you for imaginary reasons having absolutely nothing to do with Raytheon wanting to sell us more cruise missiles or Boeing's desire to sell us more F/A-18s.

Interesting how he couched his universal foreign policy on specific incidences involving daffy duck, (AKA Qaddafi). And his concern for emerging "pro-freedom movements" in the Middle East and North Africa. So, in the beginning he really didn't mean it when he tried to, if not support,  but encourage the Mubarak regime to make concessions to remain in power. That was just an oversight. Won't be doing that anymore. It's straight to the JDAMs and cruise missiles.

Obama pretty much invoked the dead dog presidency of George Bush when he said, "There will be times … when our safety is not directly threatened but our interests and values are,"

Another way to say, "If we disagree with your politics, catch you killing civilians and/or you are threatening American interests, we will bomb you back to the stone age." Of course, in this case, the American interest that is being threatened is the 2% of the world's petroleum stocks buried beneath Libya.

The only sane voice in the Times piece came from Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Levin is concerned about who we are arming and what they will do with those arms after the 'rebellion' against daffy duck is over. He wonders if, in that case, the weapons will be used for nefarious purposes. Thank you Senator Levin. You just proved someone in Washington has a grasp on reality.

Oh, BTW, I don't like the idea of spending American treasure and/or the death of American soldiers to make foreign countries conform to American values. Which, if you think about it – sending the American military to invade a third world country is pretty much doing exactly what we don't want other countries to do. 

In other breaking news, Slate had this interesting piece on women funeral directors. And the social group "Funeral Divas, Inc." formed to further their interests. Apparently, Slate.com thinks you can  look forward to more female funeral facilitators, (sorry, couldn't waste the illiteration).

And the New York Times ran a piece on how season 5 of Mad Men will be delayed.

Like I said, I don't have a TV. So maybe I am messing something here. What is it about this series that makes it compelling enough to warrant mention in the NYTimes? It's a TV show. It isn't really important. It's just drivel to fill up your mind while you veg out with a martini or a joint in hand in front of the TV at the end of the day. There will be something there to replace it on AMC. I guarantee it. So, why is this so newsworthy?

Update II: Time has a very good piece on who the rebels are and the chances they will succeed in toppling daffy duck. I have to agree with the piece's author, Tony Karon, when he points to the unlikelihood of a wholesale rebel victory. I think the chances are pretty slim that this is going to a quick in and out. The long war – so loved by the MIC – is going to be played out in Libya, as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. 


That is, if we decide to put our two cents worth in. I think the presence of American AC130 gunships and A10 ground attack aircraft sends a pretty strong message that we will. Spooky isn't anti-aircraft weapons platform and neither is the Warthog... [Thanks WaPo for the info.]

Blog: The Introduction

This my blog. Something I thought I would never do. It's, mainly, about politics in general. Although I tend to focus on what I see as infringements of civil liberties by  the government, especially pursuant to the First, Second, fourth, fifth and 14th Amendment. With an eighth amendment comment thrown in.


My writing is as well researched as I have time to do, (I actually have a life), and I try to source as much as I can. I am not a professional writer, although at one time in my life I got paid to write. I think my grammar is fairly good - I mean I can reach all the keys on my keyboard, so I shouldn't have any problems, right? That said, I love commas, (they give me time to think); hate apostrophes; love semi-colons and colons. Even if used improperly.


My writing style includes a lot of sarcasm. This is because so much of what our government does warrants sarcasm. Some of what the press does, too. And because I am a very sarcastic person.


I am not a registered republican or democrat. I did not vote for McCain or Obama in the last presidential election. I, sometimes, may be perceived as coming down on one side or the other, but I am an equal opportunity critic living in a target rich environment. Who hates stupidity; waste; incredibly bad decisions that have to be paid for with tax money; pompous asses who believe that the presidency is some sort of license to kill; attacks against sovereign nations in violation of the Nueremburg Charter and Geneva Convention; and any other standards guaranteeing basic human rights, (including, but not limited to), the right to communicate via the Internet.


I generally speak out about religious fascism. I don't care which kind of religious fascism. Like I said, I am an equal opportunity critic


What else? Hmmmmmmm I use Apple computers, which my friends tell me makes me a snob. I love my iPad. I had to send it into be fixed a couple of weeks ago and I was without it for like three days. I went into withdrawals. I mean, shit, I had to pull out my MacBook Pro. If you don't have an iPad get one. If you can't afford a new one, buy mine so I can afford to buy an iPad 2.


Another thing, I don't have any video games. Other than Tetris on my iPad. I have been playing Tetris on one computer or another since the eighties. I am too old to stop now. So, I am likely to be completely clueless about anything that happens in Grand Theft Auto or any video game featuring CareBears.


I don't have a TV. Which is a pain, sometimes.  Because of this I tend to be somewhat slow on the uptake with popular culture references after, say, 1969. I do have Netflix streaming, (I was going to put in a link to Netflix, but I think they are getting along pretty well without getting gratuitous links that they aren't paying for. Hear that Netflix? Give me free streaming and I will put links to you in my blog. Hell, I'll make up entire posts about your service.) This means I am an expert on televisions shows that were released 5-10 years ago. I have watched every episode of Law & Order: SVU ever made. I have no idea why, but I have. I like that guy on the History channel that goes fishing for bizarre fish and catches things like 150lb. catfish and 200lb. freshwater stingrays and then complains they are too small.


Actually, I am really kind of jealous of the fish guy. He get's paid to go all over the world and catch fish. I don't even fish and I'd love to get his gig. I've never seen the Amazon, so that would be a plus, too. The Goliath Tiger Fish he caught makes me less likely to go in the water than any shark. Doesn't it look sort of like Sara Palin thinks she looks? Momma grizzly hell, I'd be more frightened by the Tiger fish. But, I digress...


I try to read the websites of the New York Times, (and, no, I won't be subscribing for it once it goes behind a pay wall), The Miami Herald, Slate.com, Salon.com and, occasionally, the LA Times every morning. If you have an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch get the Fluent News aggregator. It is, hands down, the best news aggregator this news junky has ever used.


I post a lot to Internet forums and some of the things you read here will have been posted on forums before they make it here. Some of what is posted here, will make it to Internet forums.


Oh, and I don't like surveillance cameras; my phones being tapped; my travel being restricted; or any other tools of the national security state or our burgeoning police state.


I don't have a cell phone. I am categorically opposed to cell phone towers. I believe in privacy when I am on the move - this means I will never buy a General Motors vehicle with OnStar. Hear that GM, I think I'd rather have my car stolen than let you know exactly where I am at all times. Data you will happily give to the government whenever they ask.


I won't post anyone's name unless it is in the mainstream press and/or I have their direct personal consent to do so. I will quote sources from news articles so the authors get their due props.


I won't blog regularly. But, if you are a manufacturer of a product who wants me to review your product, let me know. Please start with an iPhone 4 or iPad 2 that I get to keep after the review. I mean, Apple, I've bought hundreds of your computers, printers and software for the networks I have built and maintained over the years, the least you could do it through me an iPhone and an iPad 2. After that time you sold me a 512k 'fat Mac' a day before you started selling Macintosh Pluses, you owe, big time.


Oh, and sometime, soon, I will tell you the story of the Montana Vigilance Society; Henry Plummer and my love of the history of the west in the 19th century.