Your Boss Is Watching You

To my friends who work for the Government. Be careful what you read, post, or download online. Your Boss Is Watching Thu Oct 7, 3:00 AM ET Daniel Tynan In a recent study on Internet deprivation, people forced to live without Net access for two weeks said they missed the "private space" the Internet provided them at work. Well, I have news for you. That Internet account you have at work is not your private space. It's also your boss's space, and your boss's boss's space, and so on up the line. In fact, if you think you have any real privacy on the job, you're laboring under a delusion. Here are some of the more common myths about Net privacy at work. Myth number one: My company would never spy on its employees. Maybe so, but if that's the case, you're in the minority. According to surveys by the American Management Association, nearly two-thirds of companies actively monitor where their employees go on the Web. Some 52 percent scan e-mail, and around one in five keeps an eye on instant messaging. These companies aren't just being nosy. An employee who accesses objectionable Web sites could expose the employer to lawsuits for fostering a hostile workplace environment. Employees could accidentally (or deliberately) spill confidential corporate information over e-mail or IM, or allow worms to spread throughout a corporate network. And while there are tools that help you get around such employer restrictions--the Electronic Privacy Information Center maintains a page of them--you use them at your own risk. Myth number two: If my company were spying on me, I'd know about it. Not necessarily so, Sherlock. Most monitoring is done at the network level, and most employers are under no legal obligation to tell you if you're being monitored. (Connecticut has a law requiring employers to notify workers; a similar law was passed by the California Assembly earlier this year and awaits Governor Schwarzenegger's signature.) When companies do notify employees, they typically do it with a quickly disappearing splash screen or a sentence buried in the employee handbook that says the company reserves the right to monitor communications. So just because you can get to www.cats-who-love-dogs.com (not a real site) on your work PC doesn't mean someone isn't logging your visits there. You need to ask your boss for the company's written policy on employee monitoring. If the company doesn't have a policy, request that it create one. Myth number three: It's perfectly fine to do a little recreational surfing at work, as long as I don't visit the wrong kind of sites. Maybe it is, but you may want to find out what your boss considers the "wrong kind" of sites. In a study (PDF) by the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College, more than 90 percent of companies allow "reasonable personal usage" of the Web, but only 42 percent define "reasonable." For example, four out of five of businesses surveyed said it was okay for employees to visit news sites, but only about half allowed employees to shop or bank online. Better to ask questions first and surf later. Myth number four: My e-mail conversations are none of my boss's business. That's true, but only if you're using your own computer and your own account. Otherwise companies can and do scan e-mail, even the personal stuff. In one AMA survey, some 60 percent of companies that monitor e-mail use software to scan e-mail for keywords and block sensitive information from going out. A study (PDF) by Forrester Consulting and Proofpoint found that 44 percent of large firms hired people to read corporate e-mail. About half the firms in the Bentley study had created written guidelines telling employees how to perform Internet monitoring, and only a third made monitors sign confidentiality agreements. The next time you send a personal note from work, remember that you might also be sharing this information with the geeks in the IT department. Myth number five: I can use Webmail services to get around my boss's e-mail snooping. Sorry, Bunky. Using services like Yahoo or Hotmail can make it harder for your boss to spy on your e-mail conversations, but they hardly make it impossible. Your company could use Web-monitoring software like Websense or SurfControl to block access to these sites, or log how much time you're spending at them and confront you about it. Network administrators could also install a "sniffer" that reads unencrypted data as it passes down the wires. About one in five firms surveyed by the AMA routinely monitors computer use, for example by installing keystroke loggers that record everything you type, or software that periodically captures what's on your screen. All of that can be used to spy on your Webmail messages, as well as virtually everything else you do on your PC. Myth number six: I use instant messaging for most of my personal communications, so my privacy is secure. I H8 2 disappoint U, but IM isn't as private as you'd like to believe. One-fifth of organizations currently monitor employees' instant messaging, according to Forrester, and many more companies are becoming hip to the potential of IM as a business tool and the dangers it poses. Software like FaceTime Communications' IM Director or Akonix Enforcer can record all your conversations, and/or block certain activities on IM such as file sharing. Federal legislation requires some organizations, like health firms or security brokers, to retain records of certain IM conversations. So even if you're in the clear now, your IM habits are unlikely to go unmonitored for long. Myth number seven: I work at home, so I can do whatever I please. Don't be so sure. It all depends on whose equipment and Internet connection you're using. If your employer supplied the machine, your company can do anything it pleases with the computer, including examining your personal files on the hard drive. If you use your own PC but log in using your employer's Net connection, the company can legally track any of your activity online, unless you have an agreement that states otherwise. So unless you own the gear and the bandwidth, better delete anything you don't want your boss to see. Myth number eight: I can do anything I want, as long as I delete the evidence from my computer. Dream on, Bubba. For one thing, it's likely that the evidence is still sitting there in your Recycle Bin. Even if you empty the bin, files can be easily recovered until they've been overwritten with other data. If you're on a corporate network, forget about it. Your e-mail and the contents of your hard disk are probably archived on backup media, where they can persist for years. And that's assuming your employer doesn't use Web-monitoring software, keyloggers, or other forms of digital surveillance on the network. Paper burns and memories fade, but digital evidence can live forever. Myth number nine: My workplace privacy rights are protected by law. Not as much as you might think. While government employers must follow the U.S. Constitution, restrictions on unlawful search and seizure or self-incrimination don't apply to private companies. A handful of federal employment laws restrict the kinds of information companies can collect about you before you're hired, and some states (like California) extend privacy protections to employees of private entities, but most don't. Mostly you're at your boss's mercy. Myth number ten: Even if my bosses catch me doing something naughty on the Net, they can't fire me for it. I've got bad news for you: Companies can and will fire people over Net naughtiness. According to the AMA, one in four companies surveyed in 2004 had terminated employees for violating their e-mail policies, up from 22 percent in 2003 and 17 percent in 2001 (there was no 2002 survey). So don't say you haven't been warned. PC World Contributing Editor Dan Tynan has written extensively on Internet privacy and security. He is currently hard at work on Privacy Annoyances, which will be published by O'Reilly Media.

Fucking Green Monster

I dug this up off of my Live Journal account. I thought it amusing and if you are snobbish.. Go FUCK yourself. So there was this guy who had a problem pleasing his wife because he could never get an erection. well, his wife got so fed up with her lack of orgasms that she made her husband go to the doctor for his problem. The man told his doctor of the problem and the doctor said, "i have just the thing." after saying this, he pulled out a 7-inch-long green finger-shaped thing and said "this is the 'fucking green monster.' it'll help you with all your sexual problems. just say 'fucking green monster' and then say the object or person that you want it to fuck, and it'll fuck what you tell it to." Eager to try it, the man took the 'fucking green monster' home and tried it on his wife. he said "'fucking green monster,' my wife" and sure enough, it inserted into his wife. they went at it for about three hours until the man realized that the doctor had forgotten to tell him how to stop the thing. So they headed to the doctor's office. the man was speeding because it was really starting to hurt his wife. sure enough, a cop caught them speeding and pulled them over. the cop asked "why are you speeding, sir?" and the man told the cop about the fucking green monster. In disbelief, the cop said "fucking green monster? fucking green monster, my ass!" That is all.

Bill O' Reilly - A cowardly asshole

O'Reilly is an asshole. I remember watching this and found this transcript of it. Self righteous pig headed bastard! If you talked to me like that I'd bust you right in the face and watch the blood come out of your nose! Also, check out the Pepsi deal gone bad. O' Reilly you are scum. and Your NO Republican either, just an ASSHOLE along the likes of Jerry Springer, people who need to do anything for ratings.. Read Below:

Note:Before you read this vile and insulting interview by Bill O'Reilly, let me say I watched this interview two times, this was the single most outrageous interview I have ever seen on any TV news show, anywhere by anyone. This man lost his Father in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and O'Reilly treated him like dirt. He tried to discredit and marginalize everything Mr. Glick said and showed him no respect at all just because he disagreed with O'Reilly. To say it was the most UN-professional interview ever done by a so-called journalist is an under-statement.

 Try to remember if you ever saw a real journalist, anywhere in your life, tell an invited guest to shut up, shut up, and you just shut your mouth. Then tell the audio man to cut off his mic, what happened to free speech o'reilly. After all, these are the same free speech rights O'Reilly just defended the night before in regards to the boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors.

 I guess in the biased, one-sided, conservative, all-spin zone world of Bill O'Reilly it seems you only have free speech rights when you agree with Bill and his conservative political views. The next night on the factor (2-5-03) o'reilly read an e-mail about the Glick interview telling him he should be taken off the air for his treatment of Mr. Glick. The reply to that by o'reilly was "when someone comes into your house and spits on the floor they get no respect and you show them the door." That is a direct quote from Bill O'Reilly. So what Bill is saying is that if you come on the factor and you don't agree with him you do not have free speech rights and you are an UN-American commie who gets no respect from him. If anyone doubts any of this, go buy the transcripts at foxnews.com and read them for yourself, or just watch the factor and see how he treats people who agree with him compared to people that do not agree with him.

 Partial Transcript: "The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03 O'REILLY:" In the Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true. O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement? GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved. O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement. GLICK: As an individual. O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

 GLICK: Maybe...

 O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

 GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

 O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

 GLICK: Well, OK.

 O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

 GLICK: But you do care because you...

 O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

 GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

 O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

 GLICK: ... to rationalize...

 O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

 O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

 GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

 O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

 GLICK: OK.

 O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

 O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

 GLICK: So what about George Bush?

 O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

 GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

 O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

 GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

 O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

 GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

 O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

 GLICK: OK.

 O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

 GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

 O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

 GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

 O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

 O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

 GLICK: ... not the people of America.

 O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

 GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

 O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

 GLICK: That means we're done?

 O'REILLY: We're done. Then this happened right before the commercial break: What you can not see here because it's a text transcript, is right after O'Reilly said "we're done" he made two motions with his hand. He (O'Reilly) waved at someone off camera as to say come here and get him (referring to Jeremy Glick) then he did a move with his thumb, he held his right thumb up and raised it up in a short little motion. It's as if he were hitch-hiking, like get him outta here. I am guessing he was telling someone on his staff or his bodyguard to throw Glick out of the studio. Here's the sickening apology quote O'Reilly gave after the commercials:

 OREILLY: "I have to apologize. If I knew that guy, Jeremy Glick, was going to be like that, I never would have brought him in here, and I feel bad for his family. I really do."

 The truly sad part is that if Mr. Glick were pro-bush and pro-war, and agreed with o'reilly, he would have been allowed to say whatever he wanted to, in the so-called no spin zone, and he would have been treated with total respect. Since he did not hold those positions he was told to shut up and shut your mouth and cut his mic off. I guess it's only a no-spin zone when you agree with o'reilly or his views. This is from the same guy (O'Reilly) who just the night before accused a man from takebackthemedia.com of trying to violate Rush Limbaugh's free speech rights by calling for everyone to boycott his sponsors. Which "as an american" he has the right to do, boycotts are a tradition and a right in america.Yet when Mr. Glick tried to state his views and opinions on the factor, Mr. "free speech" Bill O'Reilly told him to shut up, shut up, you just shut your mouth.

So much for free speech on the factor. -------- Speaking of boycotts, o'reilly called for a boycott of pepsi in august of 2002 because they hired the rapper Ludacris to do a commercial, this is all well documented. August 27, 2002 - http://www.boycottwatch.org - Fox News Channel commentator and host of The O'Reilly Factor urges people to boycott Pepsi after decided to run commercials featuring rapper Ludicrous. The boycott is based on Pepsi hiring a spokesman who is "peddling antisocial behavior" according to O'Reilly.

 Here are a couple quotes from the king of spin Bill O'Reilly: OREILLY: "I'm calling for all responsible Americans to fight back and punish Pepsi for using a man who degrades women, who encourages substance abuse, and does all the things that hurt particularly the poor in our society," I'm calling for all Americans to say, hey, Pepsi, i'm not drinking your stuff. You want to hang around with Ludicrous, you do that, I'm not hanging around with you. Am I wrong to do that? Call me crazy but that looks like calling for a Pepsi boycott to me.

 OREILLY: "So here's the deal, Pepsi. You want to cultivate Ludicrous? Fine. I'm drinking Coke. I'm sending you a message. I don't like your choice of pitchmen, so Dr. Pepper is now on my menu." UPDATE August 28, 2002 - http://www.boycottwatch.org - Pepsi canceled plans to feature rapper Ludicrous as spokesperson after Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly declares a boycott. - Boycott worked in less than 24 hours. According to The O'Reilly Factor, Pepsi was inundated with thousands of phone calls from irate Factor viewers regarding the Ludicrous ads. As a result, Pepsi announced they would not air the ads. The decision to pull the ads came a day after Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," bashed Pepsi as "immoral" for using Ludicrous to promote the soft drink and urged viewers to boycott Pepsi. That looks like a boycott to me.


Then after all that o'reilly told Mr. Stinson from takebackthemedia.com it was unamerican to call for a boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors. It seems that boycotts are ok in o'reilly's world as long as you don't call for one against a conservative. Then in reply to an e-mail sent to the factor (2-4-03) accusing him of being a hypocrite on the two different boycotts o'reilly denied he called for a boycott of Pepsi. He (O'Reilly) claimed it was not a boycott because he did not actually say the word "boycott." I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like an argument a 5 year old would make, not a Harvard graduate with a masters degree. If you doubt any of this just do a google search on o'reilly and Pepsi boycotts. Here is the e-mail to Bill and his reply, this is right from the factor transcript: Lise Rousseau, Lafayette, Colorado, "Mr. O'Reilly, imagine my confusion as I watched you criticize the protester for organizing the Limbaugh boycott. Last August, I heard you tacitly call for a boycott against Pepsi for hiring Ludicrous. There is a lack of consistency in your rhetoric."

OREILLY: No, there isn't, Ms. Rousseau. First of all -- Ms. Rousseau. First of all, I never do anything tacitly. I do things directly. I simply said I wasn't going to drink Pepsi while that guy was on their payroll. No boycott was ever mentioned by me. Bill just lied his ass off folks. His own news network (FOX) even has a story where it reports o'reilly called for a boycott of Pepsi. And as you can see above, the boycott of Pepsi by Bill O'Reilly is well documented. Here is the 1st paragraph of the FOX news story: Pepsi-Cola of North America said Wednesday that it was yanking its 30-second television spot featuring rapper Ludacris off the air -- just a day after Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel's host of The O'Reilly Factor, assailed Pepsi as "immoral" for using the controversial rapper and urged his viewers to boycott the beverage company.


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61589,00.html.

Is he saying his own news network is lying about the Pepsi boycott too ? In the world of Bill O'Reilly and FOX news, you are only allowed to have free speech if you agree with them. This is called fascism, it's a sad day in america when a conservative fascist (O'Reilly) on a conservative fascist fraud of a news network can get away with violating a persons free speech rights. He defends Rush Limbaugh's (Republican) free speech rights one night then violates Jeremy Glicks (Democrat) free speech rights the very next night. Then he has the nerve to claim he is an independent, not a conservative.

If you believe that e-mail me at sss_2333@yahoo.com because I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. He also told Newt Gingrich he was an objective analyst, after you pick yourself up off the floor from laughter remember he was serious.

Delaware County, Deborah Truscello, and the War Board

Scleroderma

I was at Thomas's last night after going on a trouble call (Friend who thinks he's an electrician totally messed up his 3 way switch circuits) and was chatting with a guy who's name is Jim. I've seen him in there before, usually looking bummed out about something. So I ask him, everything ok? He looks at me and tells me that his wife is dying of Scleroderma. He then says "you wouldn't know what I'm taking about". I mention ANA counts & throat streching, and that my wife Liz also has Scleroderma, and that I do understand. We talk about his wife's treatments and that she is at Delaware County Memorial Hospital for about 25 days a month, the others being home. He tells me how they need to amputate her pinkies, and that between the chemo, dialysis, and other treatments, her fragile body is breaking. I can feel for this guy. His children will have no mother, him no wife. All his dreams shattered. For the first time in a while, I think of how lucky my wife is. Her Scleroderma is dormant.(For 5 years now). We asked the same questions. What is Scleroderma? Is it always fatal? Is it contagious? Why is it that 90% of people who get it are women? My mind was racing.. On to the internet I went, searching for answers. I found a "group" on Yahoo that deals with it. The people there were all dealing with it, and my wife & me found comfort in our questions being answered. I also made my own "Group" and web site, trying to raise awareness about Scleroderma. One woman who especially helped us is Amie, the founder of the group. Weather she knew it or not, she comforted both of us in her e mails and phone calls. I hope Jim and his family find comfort. I will be praying for them.

Delaware County Domestic Relations

Have you ever dealt with them? I received a letter (Non Certified) yesterday informing me that I had a bench warrant out for my arrest. It was from the Sheriff's Department relating to a support order that had been vacated over 3 years ago. Apparently, I still owed $927.50 in arrears to them. Now, before you label me a "Deadbeat" let me tell you that I have paid on average $150.00 a week for 19 years for 2 beautiful children who I love, even though my ex informed me that my older daughter wasn't mine when she turned 18. She ain't mine? What do you mean by that? I always had a doubt in the back of my mind about my paternity, but I still signed the birth certificate anyway. It's called love. She will always remain my daughter to me and I will do anything for her and my (Biological Daughter, I feel no difference) I hold no ill feelings, only that I already spent 4 days in Charlie Sexton's famous Gulag over a bench warrant in 1999 over not showing up in 97' for court because my Mom had a stroke that morning (Documented) and while I was WORKING at the Court House! Note to self: Contact Court House for any electrical work they need done, I'm available at a very alluring rate. Anyway, $50.00 times 52 weeks times 18 years plus several thousand dollars given outside the court system =? Was this remaining $927.50 necessary? Could I sue for this? Not worth it... Money = Evil. While I was there, I was seated with 2 other PACES clients. One, was handcuffed and taken to jail (He owed $76,000 dollars); the other, with two warrants, was told to show up for court in November. The young woman at the computer was very pleasant, as were the four sheriff's in the room. A little background on my case. I had 2 children from this woman who went on welfare while living with her mom and caught her red handed (or faced) getting it on with another man. So I left. The woman that I was going to marry soon had my ass in court. So, TMI? I don't care, this is a big issue to me. There are many Dads out there that get shafted by the system, Women who smoke up the money on crack that they receive for the kids. Domestic Relations is a one sided money collecting unit, no more, no less. They do not care if the Mother is doing coke with your money that is supposed to be for the kids. Their job is just to collect, and lock your ass up if they cannot. So, Domestic Relations, I am done with you.I post notice. My bench warrant that was issued in November of 03 that I had no idea of until I visited the PACES web site has been rescinded. ZERO balance. To all others with Domestic Relations cases (You guys and gals who are lax in your payments to the DR. of DC.) PAY up, or shit your pants in the intake unit of Wackenhut, then on to a pod for 22 and a half hours a day until the over worked can arrange a hearing for you! And, to all you smokers out there, NO SMOKING AT WACKENHUT! NO EXCEPTIONS! P.S. Idea to Domestic Relations: USE CERTIFIED MAIL! To You GUYS out there? Keep it in your pants,it's cheaper...

Yesterday afternoon I went to my favourite watering hole, Thomas's Cafe. To make a long story short, there are people in there who believe that Saddam did 911. Mr.B, a long time customer, was even getting pissed off at me and "Bruce" to the point of leaving after we tried in vain to tell him different. I asked B where he got his information. He replied, The TV. The Times... Oh, ok, the Times? You mean The Daily Times? Gil Spencer's Daily Times? B.went on to praise Bush for ridding the world of evil, and if it took ten thousand more dead troops to get the job done, well, so be it. Then, I have Mr. G inform me that I have no right to drive in Pennsylvania, it is a privilege.(I have to look this up, as I made a bet with him). Still another man, a stranger chimed in calling me a Democrat, whatever that is supposed to mean. So here you have 3 guys, one a cop, another claiming to be in the military (The stranger), a third retired coming down on me and Bruce like flies on shit. These guys really believe that Saddam Hussein was the man responsible for 911. I asked them: What about Bin Laden? B replies: There all connected.. Ok, whatever B. Keep reading Gil and keep being sheep to the media. Baaaaa. So, I ask all three one question: Do you own a computer? All three replied NO. Advice? Never discuss politics in a bar. Everybody thinks there right. On another note, I as you all can see, have a "BlogRoll". One site, Peter's Blog is listed there. This is what he posted about my link. Interesting Site? [Geeky Stuff] - peter @ 02:02:39 PM I found my blog (what you're looking at) listed under the "Interesting Sites" category on the Delaware County, PA Web Portal & Directory. This is totally random and weird. Totally random and weird. Hmmmm. Let's see. "Interesting Sites". Yes, I think the guy is talented with web design and graphics, Anime and stuff. Shall I start censoring what sites I add? Should everybody censor their blogrolls? My blogroll has far more "random and weird" sites than his. One, stellaislaura, is a blog from some woman who knits. how did I find her? I haven't got a clue. Must have been drinking and googling one night discussing knitting with the wife. But there it is, blogrolled forever. Hey,I wish someone would blogroll my blog. Hint to Mike... Well it's damn too early for me to be up, so I have time before work to googleblog some more sites that I find interesting. Cheers.

'Which Swift Boat Veteran for Truth Member Blows His Brains Out First?'

September 23, 2004 I said it months ago, and I was right. These Swifties have successfully brought up the 'Dark Secrets and Atrocities' that went on in Vietnam. Regardless of who wins the Election come November 2, the fact is, Americans, Especially the 'Children' Will be doing more and more investigations and studying of the Vietnam War and those studies will include the hidden, well kept atrocities of that war, find out what that many of the things that John Kerry testified to back in the early 1970's are indeed factual, but have been successfully kept away from the general public over the last 35 yrs. Come this Holiday Season, You have to ask yourself, which 'Swift Boat Veteran For Truth Member' will be asked by one of their Grandchildren any of the following questions during Thanksgiving, or Christmas Dinner.... Grandpa, Did You know those guys who Cut Off Vietnamese Children's Heads during the War When You Served? Grandpa, Did you burn down people's homes too? Grandpa, Did you open fire and kill anything that moved? Or will they say things like.... Grandpa (Sobbing) Killing Mommies in front of their Children isn't right. Grandpa (sobbing) you said John Kerry was a Liar, and saying things that were not true but but the teacher in school taught us about Lt. Calley and the My Lai Massacre What those soldiers did was very bad, wasn't it? Grandpa, my teacher taught us about the 'Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths of Tiger Force' Did you know them? Did you do things like they did? (Sobbing) Did you ever cut the head off of a Baby in Vietnam? Which one of these guys, members of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' will be confronted with what is described above this holiday season by their own families, their grandchildren. Having to look them in their eyes during 'Thanksgiving' or 'Christmas' Dinner and realize that it was the actions of himself, for hopping on John O'Neill's bandwagon, to attempt to prevent John Kerry from becoming President because of Kerry's actions after he came home from the Battle Field and reported what was really going on in those jungles, reading testimony from other veterans of the horrors they have seen, or conducted. All with a one purpose, to bring an end to the madness. Which 'Swiftie' is going to realize that it was himself, who is responsible for opening up the can of dark secrets, atrocities, resulting from the actions of the 'Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Campaign' which has successfully accomplished opening up a the 'Pandora's Box of Vietnam'. As their Grandchildren, and Family are all looking at him during the dinner table, with tears coming down their eyes, and fear and horror overwhelm their faces as they discuss these things John Kerry testified about really did happen, and the issue of the Vietnam War itself, Which one of these 'Swifties' will feel his heart sink into his stomach, feel it being slowly digested by the his amino acids, eating away at him, destroying all he has, for his family will be watching, staring, at him with the realities of the Horrors of War overwhelming all he loves,,,, his family. Which Member of John O'Neill's Crew, will face this? And which one of these Swifties will wait for dinner to be over, their families to put their jackets on and leave for their own homes, then walk into his garage, his basement, or just sit right their in his living room, reflecting, with his gun in his hand, putting it to his head, and Blowing his Brains Out?

Folcroft Cops Deserve Justice

This was posted in the Daily Times. Disgraceful to say the least,that this Truscello guy thinks he's above the law. If I were a Cop in Folcroft, I'd be pissed! Editorial: Officials who spied in Folcroft deserve ouster 09/23/2004 Hundreds of police officers and their supporters stormed Folcroft Borough Council on Tuesday night, demanding to know why borough officials placed electronic surveillance equipment in their own police department -- and what is happening with the county’s criminal investigation of the matter. As an attention-getter, it was a first-rate demonstration. But a more disturbing indicator of the collapse of the Folcroft government came last month. That’s when Folcroft police moved a homicide investigation to the neighboring Darby Township police headquarters -- because they were afraid any interviews that took place in their own police station could be compromised by surreptitious monitoring by outsiders. That paranoia and accusations reign supreme in the borough can be laid at the feet of the borough manager, Anthony Truscello, a longtime Republican power in the town and its former district justice; council Vice President Joseph Zito; and his council colleagues, who say the action was necessary to investigate complaints of cops sleeping on duty. Their wildly irresponsible decision to bug their own police officers has not only rendered their town a laughingstock but has imperiled every police investigation since the spying began. What’s to stop any enterprising defense attorney from subpoenaing all the audio- or videotapes made in the police department to bolster a case in court? Nothing. Who would beresponsible? Truscello, Zito and company. And who will pay? The taxpayers of Folcroft, of course, who already involuntarily shelled out nearly $10,000 for the surveillance equipment in the first place. (They’ll also foot the bill for the litigation certain to be filed by the Fraternal Order of Police, which would seem to have a very legitimate claim on behalf of its members of invasion of privacy.) The crowd was so large, and so incensed, on Tuesday night that Truscello at one point called the state police to ask for protection. That’s how bad things are in Folcroft: The former district justice -- who is still certified by the state to sit on the bench as a senior district judge, and whose daughter Debbie is the town’s sitting district justice -- had to call the state to ask for protection from his own police department. Tuesday’s protesters wanted to know what the county District Attorney’s office was doing about the investigation, which has been in its hands. County detectives, armed with a warrant, hauled out the bugging equipment last May. They got no answers that night or the next day, when a spokesman for District Attorney G. Michael Green would say only that the matter is still being examined. The criminal justice system takes its own time, as any good police officer knows. But the fact that no criminal charges have been filed doesn’t excuse the fact that a gross injustice has occurred, irrevocably rupturing the bond of trust between the people, their police department, and their elected officials. Dismissals and resignations are in order, starting with the borough manager and council leadership. It’s time to clean house in Folcroft -- and, this time, not just of electronic surveillance equipment. ©The Daily Times 2004

This is what our government is doing

The enemy is us In war, you deny information, spread lies and use psychological warfare. An expert on military information operations explains how Bush has mastered this technique -- and used it against the American people. By Sam Gardiner 09/22/04 "Salon.com" -- On Thursday, Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, will speak before a joint meeting of Congress, and from what he said in London on his way to the United States, it looks like Americans are going to be getting more of the strategic information operations that have been crucial to Bush's policy on Iraq from the beginning. On Monday, Allawi said at a press conference: "Terrorists are coming and pouring into Iraq to try to undermine the situation in Iraq ... And God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London will be a target, Washington will be a target." In those sentences, Allawi employed the basic doctrine of strategic information operations: Influence emotions, motive and objective reasoning. Use repetition to create a collective memory in the target audience. And the recurrent message of both Allawi and the Bush administration is: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11. The Army Field Manual describes information operations as the use of strategies such as information denial, deception and psychological warfare to influence decision making. The notion is as old as war itself. With information operations, one seeks to gain and maintain information superiority -- control information and you control the battlefield. And in the information age, it has become even more imperative to influence adversaries. But with the Iraq war, information operations have gone seriously off track, moving beyond influencing adversaries on the battlefield to influencing the decision making of friendly nations and, even more important, American public opinion. In information denial, one attempts to deceive one's adversary. Since the declared end of combat operations, the Bush administration has orchestrated a number of deceptions about Iraq. But who is its adversary? In August 2003, the administration's message was that everything in Iraq was improving. The White House led the information effort and even published a paper on the successes of the first 100 days of the occupation. By October the message had shifted: Things were going well in Iraq, but the media was telling the wrong story. Then, toward the end of 2003, the message was that the whole problem in Iraq was "dead-enders" and "foreign fighters." If it weren't for them, the situation would be fine. Then, after Saddam Hussein was captured in December, the message shifted again: The coalition had discovered along with the former dictator documents revealing the insurgent network, which now would be broken. Once again, everything would be fine. At the approach of the hand-over to Iraq's interim government in late June, the administration said the event represented the worst fears of the insurgents, who did not want any movement toward democracy. The White House warned that there would be increased violence as the insurgents tried to prevent the interim government from assuming its proper role in running the country. In fact, violence did increase before the transfer, but there was even more violence afterward. But the administration's information about the situation in Iraq sharply declined. Denying information to adversaries is one way of maintaining information dominance. (According to the Army Field Manual, this dimension involves "withholding information that adversaries need for effective decision-making.") In the case of Iraq, this has meant eliminating press releases and press briefings. Since the hand-over of power, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq has issued only six releases, including one on the new Iraqi environment minister's visit to a landfill project. The most recent press release, on Aug. 12, was about a boxer on Iraq's Olympics team. The last press briefing by the Multi-National Force in Iraq was June 25. The interim Iraqi government does not hold press conferences. The White House Web site also reflects the strategy of withholding information. It used to actively provide content on Operation Iraqi Freedom (or as the Web site now says, "Renewal in Iraq"), but the last new entry is dated Aug. 5. The effect of the White House's control of information has been dramatic. The chart shows how English-language press coverage of Iraq has fallen off since July. Early in July, it was typical to find almost 250,000 articles each day mentioning Iraq. That number has dropped to 150,000. The goal of denying the adversary access to information is being realized. But, again, who is the adversary? Before, during and immediately after the war, the White House orchestrated an intensive program of press briefings and releases to saturate media time and space, stay on message, keep ahead of the news cycle and manage expectations. The White House conference call set the daily message. The press briefings from the Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, were designed to dominate the morning and afternoon press coverage, while the afternoon press briefing by the Pentagon was intended for the evening news. The White House is also using psychological warfare -- conveying selected information to organizations and individuals to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately behavior -- to spread its version of the war. And the administration's message is obviously central to the process. From the very beginning, that message, delivered both directly and subtly, has been constant and consistent: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11. The president tells us that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here in the United States. But I know of no one with a respectable knowledge of the events in Iraq who shares that view. My contacts in the intelligence community say the opposite -- that U.S. policies in fact are creating more terrorism. Still, the administration has made its case for the 9/11 terrorism and Iraq connection with some sophistication. For example, on March 25, 2003, the United States renamed the Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Either the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the White House (I have been told it was both) directed that they now be called "terrorist death squads" -- promoting the overarching message: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11. Recently, the purported terrorist connection was reinforced by another change in terminology. When coalition forces bomb a house in Fallujah, the Multi-National Force press releases now announce that they bombed a "safe house." But Marines don't come to that phrase naturally. Marines hit enemy positions. They strike targets. The implication is fairly obvious. Since terrorists use "safe houses," the insurgents in Fallujah must be terrorists. And some of us thus come to believe that we are in Iraq to fight the "global war on terrorism." Appealing to the emotions aroused by 9/11 is classic psychological warfare. And repetition of the terrorist argument is utterly consistent with the theory that one can develop collective memory in a population through repetition. Images are also essential in psychological warfare, so negative images must be defeated as quickly as possible. That's why the images of the contractors killed in Fallujah were so worrisome to the administration. Government intelligence sources told me there was fear they would have an impact like the images of dead U.S. Army Rangers being dragged through the streets in Somalia did in 1993, causing rapid erosion in support for that war. Although we don't know all the facts yet, it's almost certain that the White House or the Pentagon ordered the Marine attack on Fallujah to fight those negative images. Five U.S. soldiers were killed on the same day as the private contractors when their Bradley fighting vehicle was destroyed. But there was almost no official reaction to their deaths, no pictures; their deaths did not pose an image problem. Now, the New York Times reports that military operations to open up the no-go areas in Iraq will not occur until November or December. The official line is that the administration wants to wait until Iraqi security forces are better trained. My military mind only hurts when I hear this argument. The United States has been trying to train the Iraqis to take over for almost two years now. The effort began with the training camp in Hungary before the war, but that program failed. The robust training program that began in the early stages of the occupation was declared a failure with the onset of the insurgents' offensive in April. The administration has not been able to staff the headquarters tasked to direct the training. Nor is it even certain who among those being trained are on our side. The Marines around Fallujah joke that after they take a member of the Iraqi National Guard to the firing range for practice, the sniper who shoots at them that night shows a remarkable improvement in his aim. It's clear the Americans will bear the major brunt of the attack on Fallujah. What could possibly be behind the administration's decision to wait until November or December to launch it? There's certainly no commander in the field saying, "Let's give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack." Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the United States is suffering increased casualties. Any military officer would say that you have to take the fight to the enemy. So what can we conclude about this decision? There is only one conceivable answer -- the White House is delaying military operations until after the Nov. 2 election for political reasons. In the meantime, information-denial operations must be ratcheted up to control the story. But that is becoming more difficult. During the early part of the war, there was more deception than truth in the comments and press briefings of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the fabricated stories was the early surrender of the commander and the entire 51st Iraqi mechanized division. We were told of an uprising in Basra -- it did not happen. We were told Iraqis had stolen U.S. uniforms to commit atrocities -- this was not true. We were told on White House and State Department Web sites that the Iraqi military had formed units of children to attack the coalition -- untrue. We were told of a whole range of agreements between the French and Iraq before the war over weapons -- false. We were told Saddam had marked a red line around Baghdad and that when we crossed it Iraq would use chemical weapons -- completely fabricated. We were told of an elaborate scheme by Saddam's forces to ambush U.S. Marines on March 23 as they fought toward Baghdad. The president mentioned this incident many times. It turns out what really happened that day is that the Marines were repeatedly attacked by a U.S. Air Force A-10. It was a friendly-fire incident, not an Iraqi ruse. But building on the theme of Iraqi evil was more important than the truth. Military intelligence officials' prewar assertion when no WMD were found that Iraq had moved its weapons to Syria is another example of information denial. But although the Iraq Survey Group report to be released at the end of this month will announce once and for all that Iraq did not have WMD, the WMD argument already served its purpose in garnering support for the invasion. The important message now remains: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11. The fog of war has not yet lifted. But when the strategy is to hide the war from the American people, rather than to get them to approve its instigation, fabrication is more difficult to sustain. Karl von Clausewitz, the Prussian theorist of war, wrote, "War is an extension of politics by other means." When I taught Clausewitz to students at various military war colleges, I told them that he meant international politics. But I may have been wrong -- I fear war has become an extension of domestic politics, moving beyond influencing adversaries on the battlefield to influencing the decision making of friendly nations and, even more important, American public opinion. Why have the American people become the adversary? Republicans AND Democrats, Think of your COUNTRY first!