Archives!

I was bored today, and was randomly poking around some government web pages. Not like a hacker or anything, just doing a little social engineering and typing in variations of URL's, trying to find an accidentally unsecured private area.

I was in the Department of Homeland Security pages, a couple links down, and decided to start playing a bit. At the end of the legit URL I would but a "../private" or "../secure," and whatever else I could think of, and see if anything was there. Eventually I found a slightly different "Access Forbidden" message, and played a little longer, and found a bunch of documents belonging to someone named "Smith." It was, at least, in a directory called "/smith."

I've dl'd a bunch of the documents, and am in the process of converting them to html, and will post them sometime today. Good stuff... a bunch of future-dated press releases, among other things.

One of the few people with enough good taste to link us is having issues with discharge... from the military, that is. Tha Gigalo from Computer Gigalo.com is less than a week away from becoming a civilian, according to his webpage... "Five days and a wake-up" if you speak military. He's leaving the ranks of the Army, and taking a break from things technical to pursue a degree in English Composition with a focus in Teaching at the University of Northern Texas.

Head on over to his site and give him a laurel, and hearty handshake as he transitions into just another slimy civilian. He seems like a pretty good guy in spite of the "army" thing.

Updated the links on the left a bit to trim some dead links, and made an update on the Music Page.

Here's my own interpretation of what the moron holding this particular "Bush = Hitler" board in the last post was thinking about when he made his sign.

If you're going to seriously compare President Bush with a genocide... well... there's no hope for you, anyway.

Just received an email with a few pictures that supposedly came from a "peace" rally in San Francisco this month.

SYDNEY, Australia -- Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to have bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian television station.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Part of President Bush's rally to war with Iraq was his understanding that Saddam has WMD's. As time goes on and no working missiles are found, the Anybody But Bush crowd are happily crowing "Bush Lied," which to me implies they are acting the victims, they were duped, and they were fine with war if Saddam had WMD's. Saddam always denied having them, of course.

I wonder if al-Qaida's claiming to have nukes will sway anyone. I wonder if it will be a matter of, "We knew Saddam was telling the truth, but Osama is just pretending." Lots of people claim to know more than is possible for them anyway (*cough*Sean Penn*cough*), so my guess is this claim will be blown off. The terrorist apologists will keep their head in the sand and celebrate their tunnel vision until somehow, someway the threat of terrorism is brought home to them personally.

America did not deserve 9/11 (in spite of what the terrorist apologist will tell you), and the Spaniards didn't deserve 3/11. But, by putting appeasers in charge the day after, Spain deserves whatever it gets from here on out... the same way we deserve what we get if we put Kerry in the White House.

Think Bush is bad? Imagine the hardliner we'll elect in '08 when Kerry castrates us and the terrorists have a field day.

I'm going to attempt to make a political post in a completely unbiased manner. I am going to take the text of a recent interview with John Kerry, and ask him to expand on some of his statements. All I want are answers... if I can get satisfactory ones, I will adjust my thinking about the man as a human and a politician.

The interview can be found here. I've made no changes to the statements Kerry has made.

My question: How do you define leadership, Mr. Kerry? Is it not standing in the smoking ruin of the twin towers with a bullhorn, telling America that we will rise and overcome? Is it not flying out to an aircraft carrier to be with the troops to personally congratulate them on a job well done? Is it not flying into a vanquished enemy capital to have Thanksgiving dinner with the very people you've tasked with bringing order to the world? To me, a veteran, those are outstanding examples of leadership. Your response, Mr. Kerry?

Kerry: I'm the only United States senator elected four times, serving in the Senate today, who has voluntarily refused to take the big checks, the money from political action committees.

I've gone out and raised money from individual Americans. And if you added up all the money in my lifetime that's been given to me by lobbyists, anybody who's lobbied for anything, it's about 1 percent of the total of everything I've done.

I know I'm nitpicking a bit, Mr. Kerry, but which is it? In a single statement you've said you don't take money from lobbyists, and then you said lobbyists account for "about 1%" of the money you've been given. Which is it? Which lobbyists do you make an exception for, and why? How much is 1% of all the money you've raised?

What is unfair about a "tax cut for the wealthiest people?" Be specific, and explain your reasons.

What's your definition of marriage? What's the difference between marriage and "civil unions?"

What is the right way, and the wrong way? Are you implying we shouldn't have moved without the approval of the U.N.? If so, why? If not, what did President do wrong? Be sure to base your answer in real-world reality, in which the last three American presidents (with the majority of countries in the world) were under the impression Iraq was sustaining a secret, illegal weapons program.

Excellent. I'll be sending the direct url to my questions to the Kerry camp. I will accept "direct, straight" answers in the form of email, mail, or message board post.

Please clarify that statement, taking economic law into account. What does, "fighting for working people" mean?

It seems to me that when you raise minimum wage, and employers/manufacturers are forced to raise the prices of their goods and services to compensate for their increase in costs, it hurts the people who are making more than minimum raise, and didn't get a corresponding pay increase, as their money does not go as far anymore. Comments? I thought you said earlier you wanted to "fight for working people?" Did you mean you only wanted to help those making minimum wage? It certainly supports your other statements about "wealthy" people.

And that's the end of that interview. I purposely avoided the most derisive of issues for me, what he did to the veterans he left when he returned from Viet Nam, because there's no way I can be unbiased when discussing that issue, as I am a vet myself. Just being honest.

The letter I'm sending to Mr. Kerry will be in the Feedback thread, as will any response I receive.

People claim President Bush was a deserter, so evidence is provided to the contrary. It is ignored. Then, his service in the National Guard is dismissed as draft dodging, and hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen are slighted. Likely Democratic front runner John "Ask Yourselves Why The Vietnamese Hate Us" Kerry flaunts his brief time in Viet Nam as a leadership trait, where if even half of what I've heard about him is true then it's a wonder he wasn't fragged by his own men in week 1 of his truncated tour. It's amazing nobody had tried since, unless, of course, Viet Nam veterans aren't the barbarians he claims they all were.

Kerry is a puzzle: once a warrior, now distrustful of his nation's power and position in the world. He had a soda-straw-wide view of a war that Americans still don't agree should have been fought. He came back from it to condemn the war and those who fought it even though some were still being beaten and tortured in North Vietnamese prison camps. He abandoned them for the company of Hanoi Jane to propel himself into politics. Cong. Sam Johnson, who was held prisoner by the North Vietnamese for seven years, was asked about the picture of Kerry sitting near Jane Fonda at an antiwar demonstration. He told the Washington Times, "Seeing this picture of Kerry with her at antiwar demonstrations in the United States just makes me want to throw up." There is no such revulsion of George Bush among the best of judges: the Vietnam-era military, and those who now go in harm's way.

The distrust and doubt Kerry learned in Vietnam now colors everything he sees. When John Kerry looks at terrorism he sees a threat we can deal with without going to war. In the Middle East he sees only a Vietnam-like quagmire. Kerry doesn't believe America can win this war, and lacks the confidence in America to lead it through the conflict.
National Review

I remember in grade school hearing about the people who would spit on veterans returning from Viet Nam, calling them baby killers, throwing mud at them. I remember how shameful an act that seemed to my 10-year-old brain. Now I learn that John Kerry supported and encouraged such behavior. This is the kind of man people want leading their country? Even if today the man would just say, "well, when I was younger I had different opinions about things..." he would gain some semblance of integrity. But he doesn't. Whenever asked about his activities in the 70's, he just gives the typical non-answer we hear day and night from people who wish to ignore the tough questions. I wish more interviewers had the balls to just flat out say, "You didn't answer my question."

Too many people still fall into the "if enough people say it, it must be true" camp, regarding President Bush. In spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, people still think it is possible he was AWOL or a deserter from his command, mainly because of a remark from his Commanding Officer that he didn't remember Lt. Bush's presence. Well, let me tell you... I don't remember what I ate five days ago. Is the logical conclusion that I am fasting? Also, I don't remember more than 10 names of people with whom I graduated high school, even though we graduated 140. Obviously, I was AWOL my senior year (which actually is arguable).

As for me, I want to trust my leaders. If I was in a fox hole with Charlie inside the wire, who would I want covering my back? It sure wouldn't be the guy who was going to go home early and tell the country how evil I was to make a name for himself in politics. I'll take President Bush covering my 6 any day.

A has-been pop singer exposes a boob in order to be seen as a peer to Britney and Christina, and the country has collective apoplexy.

I don't understand what the turmoil is about. Why is the nation in an uproar over a tit? Is it because of The Children? Is it because he was white and she's black? Is it because if her tit makes a few dicks get hard, not as many people will buy the erection enhancing product that was a big money advertiser during the Superbowl?

Do I want the FCC spending taxpayer money to "investigate" Janet Jackson's boobie? I haven't wanted to investigate Janet's boobies for at least ten years, personally.

And today I saw Janet's "I'm so sorry/please don't keep me from selling records on your station" speech, and I am further disgusted. She made a point to clarify that neither CBS nor MTV had anything to do with it, which implies to me she was pressured to say that by the two networks. I can see CBS wanting to not shun their delicate, fragile old people over 50 who were just trying to enjoy some hip-hip lip synching with "keepin' it real" Puff Daddy, Nelly, Janet Jackson, and Justin Timberlake. These people didn't want to see a partially exposed nipple... they wanted to see a troupe of dancers shaking their asses in unison to distract everyone from the fact that Puff Daddy has sampled another song due to lack of creativity and relevance.

These people don't want to explain to their children why there was a partially exposed breast on television... they just wanted to sit with their kids and watch some football intermixed with high-priced commercials about beer and penile dysfunction.

But why did MTV demand Janet distance her antics from them? Why is it upsetting to MTV that they may be associated with a scantily clad female poptart doing controversial things? I thought MTV was all about "sticking it to the man." I thought MTV was pushing boundaries and setting trends. I thought MTV... no, wait, MTV stopped caring about anything except getting money out of teenagers about fifteen years ago.

But that still doesn't explain why they're worried about offending the Superbowl crowd. Taken as a whole, Janet didn't show a quarter of the skin you see in a typical MTV video. Not sure why a partially exposed nipple enrages so many people.

During my daily boring required activities, like showering, I tend to zone and just have deep thoughts. Sometimes I'll get so deep into my brain that I'll suddenly come back to reality, and not remember whether or not I've shampooed my hair, yet. I had one of those thought processes today.

I got to wondering about current events, and wondering what the next big terrorist strike on the U.S. would be. Wondering when cafes and pizza parlors will be targeted by single suicide bombers like they are constantly in Israel... my guess is that it's only a matter of time. (For the record, I don't obsess over this crap... it's just the turn my thoughts took today)

Then I got to thinking about what the United States would do about it, I wondered if more rights would be restricted, more surveillance cameras put into place, etc. Then I got to thinking... why don't we just fight the war the terrorist assholes seem to want to fight? Why doesn't some American hijack an Egyptian Air flight, and assuming the thing can remain airborne longer than 5 minutes, fly that thing right to Mecca, and into that big black Muslim boxy thing? Totally wipe out a big symbol of Islam, the way they hit a big symbol of America on 9/11. I was thinking... how would I take control of the aircraft... what kind of team would I need, how would I evade military defenses... I had good ideas for all the factors involved.

But then I realized I and other Americans weren't primitive cavemen, and couldn't do something like that.

The terrorist assholes should be thankful we aren't like them. Mecca and every Islamic city with a population greater than 5000 would already be rubble.

Just got back from my 4th screening of Return of the King. Empty matinees rule...

Anyway, saw some trailers I'd never seen. The new Harry Potter looks, at first glance, a little darker than its predecessors... which is good. Kinda cool to see a chorus of kids singing "Something Wicked this way Comes."

From the looks of the two minutes I saw, it's about a Civil War soldier who loves his girlfriend way more than any of the other soldiers love their women, so he puts down his rifle and deserts from the army to go be with her. It looked to be about his journey back to Nicole Kidman.

I've heard a lot of so-called "Oscar-buzz" about this movie... some even say it's the only movie that could possibly upset Return of the King for best picture.

Now, even without seeing Cold Mountain, I'm going to say King is the better film; so here's my Oscar Best Picture pick:

Return of the King is about the battle between good and evil, and fighting against overwhelming odds for what is right, against an enemy that knows nothing but reckless hate, sometimes knowingly unto death. Nobody in Rohan stops to ask, "Why do the orcs hate us?" They just mount up, kiss their women goodbye, and ride straight into an evil enemy host that outnumbers them ten to one while screaming "Death!" at the top of their lungs.