Dear ESPN

Todd Boyd's article ("You can't discuss Bonds without race") was well-written but perhaps it would be more satisfying if Todd would actually stand up for Bonds.

After reading as much of "Game of Shadows" as I could stomach, I am disgusted with the sports writing community in general who touted this book as the proof that Bonds was cheating.

Interestingly enough, the authors (my apologies to real writers) concede that Bonds didn't so much as drink a protein shake before the 1998 season.

The current theme in Baseball media circles is to pile on Bonds at every opportunity. You can tune in to almost any show where the name Bonds comes up and find some know-nothing libeling Bonds.

Bonds is going down for perjury, Bonds is a cheater, Bonds associates are in jail, Bonds once beat up an 8 year old who wanted an autograph...It goes one and on. But none have mentioned that Bonds was granted immunity from prosecution during his Balco Grand Jury appearance while touting the book as authoritative.

We are supposed to believe that Bonds, who has been lambasted since well before 1993 when he came to the Giants organization, and who had nothing to lose when it came to public opinion, nor any reason to lie, lied about his steroid use. Absurd.

The authors also let us know (and the general media again doesn't mention this) that Barry, while working with Anderson from BALCO, was being tested regularly. And his test results not only showed no sign of steroids, but also higher testosterone levels than one would expect for somebody who regularly used steroids. All this is in the book, but the sports writers who accuse Barry of "hating baseball" are exposing themselves as the true haters. I'm convinced that most sports personalities who claim the book in question is proof of something other than the fact that you don't have to have talent to be a sports commentator, have not even read the book. And if they have, they didn't do it with even the slightest critical view.

These cretins and their hangers-on are willing to ruin the game for as many within ear shot while promoting themselves.

I'm not black and those who commissioned the recent poll mentioned in Todd's article didn't bother to have its authors contact me or anyone I know who supports bonds.

I'm a fan of Baseball and Barry Bonds. But I wasn't a fan of Barry's when he first came to the Giants. I was a die hard Will Clark fan and didn't want to see Will leave the team.

But in the subsequent years, I have witnessed a marvelous player who loves the game of baseball (in spite of all the valid reasons he could grow to hate it) and who has been treated mercilessly by the so-called press.

I don't think that Bonds used steroids. However, if he did, and here's another bit from the book that you won't see repeated often, "they don't work."

The quote is Barry's. If you've actually paid attention, what fueled Barry's 2001 record-breaking was a change he made to his swing. And if you don't believe me, just compare his first home run to #745. Major league baseball has both available at the Bonds fan page.

Also not mentioned often is that in the years leading up to the single-season record-breaking year, Bonds' home run production actually went down. Prior to 2001, his best year was in 1996 - two years before he is alleged to have started taking steroids - when he hit 46 homers. But again, rather than simply stand back and marvel at the sheer talent and work ethic that has resulted in one of the most productive all-around ball players to ever play the game, fans of this game will be subjected to more "experts" claiming that the only way one can improve himself is to take drugs.

And really, how absurd is that? You have a bunch of middle-aged white guys (mostly), who haven't accomplished nearly as much in their lifetimes, ragging on Barry because he isn't as physically inept as they.

Sour grapes. In closing, I'd like to request that Todd get some stones and stand up for Barry. There may be a racial element to the criticism he has received, but this witch hunt is mainly stirred up by a bunch of jealous wannabees who have had Bonds laugh at them during a press conference one too many times.

Sincerely,

A baseball fan in Austin.

Music over which the RIAA can't sue you for downloading..

Just thought I could share with the 3 or 4 people who actually visit this blog. It took me a year to finally get the pieces put together so I could actually burn it to CD or rip it to mp3's. A really fabulous drummer named Kenny Pardo laid down the groove on about 30 songs with me when I was still living in San Jose. He's from San Francisco and is just a monster drummer. I play all the rest of the instruments on this including the voice box.

So I just found a place to host it. You can download Afraid to Fall and tell me what you think.

Maps are Complicated

I am very dis-satisfied with the state of map services on the Internet. So much so that I've quite my job to write a better service. Yes, this might qualify for an insanity award, but it is my life and I am so far happy with my decisions and illusions.

After playing with some of the MAP API's offered by Google, Yahoo and Mapquest I've come to the conclusion that Mapping software is really complicated. (A collective "Duh" is heard and acknowledged).

One of the gaping holes I've discovered has to do with the standardization of intersection names. Namely, there is no such standardization. Try the following in a few map service providers.

TX-71 (W) & I-35 (N), Austin, TX

If you haven't guessed, I want the spot where 71 (Ben White) crosses the north bound lanes of IH 35 in south Austin. This string will work for Google, but not Mapquest or Yahoo. I guess that would be bad since they're all about search technology and need to retain some sort of identity apart from one another. But for the end user it really is bad because if you want to get directions to an intersection or pick an intersection as your starting point, there is no reliable way to select an intersection and then tailor your directions from that spot. Yes, you can use an address and pass through the intersection but hitting that spot is the challenge. I stumbled upon this when testing out a trick little jsp tag library for Google Maps.

bv

With everything moving to geocodes, this problem is exacerbated because you have to be accurate when specifying an intersection in order to get the geocodes returned to your app. The tag library above actually uses Yahoo's geocode API to return lat/lon values from address values you provide, so that you can add custom markers on maps you create via the tag library.

Some of the private map software providers provide complicated aliasing schemes where the user actually provides the aliases but has to create a reference to the actual geocode. Starting to see the circular logic problem involved here?

Also, notice the example I provided above isn't even consistent on Google. If I derive a pattern from the above example, I should be able to use something similar to find the spot where I-10 crosses I-45 in Houston. Using the "get directions" link on google maps, enter in your data like this:

From: TX-71 (W) & I-35 (N), Austin, TX To: I-45 (S), I-10 (E), Houston, TX

You get the following:

We could not understand the location I-45 (S), I-10 (E), Houston, TX

Eh? Why not? Now modify this a bit and just replace the destination to "I-45 Houston TX". And Voila! Directions to Houston but going North on I-45! You can't specify that you want to go south unless you make your destination some location south of Houston.

Boo!

I'm not sure that this is Google's "fault", it's a historical thing. The alias information for most of the map data available regarding intersections is derived and people have never been consistent by default. Think about it, address incormation is consistent (within a country anyway). But no such standardization has been devised for intersections.

A standardized intersection naming convention for at least the major and minor freeways and highways would surely be a wonderful thing even if a daunting task.

How much would it be worth to have every intersection abstracted such that you could enter in a string matching a standard pattern and return reliable coordinates? I'd certainly pay for it.

Taking the Plunge

I think I've finally given up on politics. I find it utterly futile and stupid. So I'm not going to talk about politics anymore unless I just can't help myself. Hillary could get elected after all.

After over 3 years at my current job, I'm packing it in to head off on a real adventure. I'll be building an idea I've had for some time about providing software and services for the people who still use the roads and highways to travel.

I have found the various travel sites and map engines lacking in areas I think would provide a good deal of benefit for end users. Software I would actually use. The vehicle (no pun intended) for the software and services will be roadlogs.com. So watch that space and keep your pants on most of the day. You're safe to take them off at night.

I have no idea where that phrase originated. I think I'll go ask Jeeves....

Early Voting!

It's all about the election now. I do hope you vote libertarian or "none of the above" this Tuesday. I mean, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to do anything significantly different then the Republicans do you? Think that they'll repeal the Patriot Act? Sucker! Think they'll bring the troops home? Sucker!

I mean really....

demidog

Lock Up Your Sons From The Party Of Family Values

Oh the irony. GOP Congressman Mark Foley resigned his House seat today after emails and text messages he sent to minor male staffers started surfacing amongst media outlets today.

While co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children, Foley was busy drafting an overhaul of the Federal sex offender law. And when he wasn't making haughty speeches about making the minor children of America safe from sexual predators, he was trying to pick up underage staffers.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

If I had to guess, I'd say that at one of the kids came forward as a victim because he wanted to stay in the closet. ABC didn't show the rest of these conversations but it doesn't sound like the kid minds that much. Where's the objection? It's not hard to offer a "Hey, that's pretty creepy" if you are truly offended as the boy is alleging. It would be interesting to know whether or not the kid is really under 18. Foley didn't wait around to defend himself. His first tack was to claim that the messages were taken out of context. When ABC asked him about the above messages, he promptly resigned.

I think that says allot about the authenticity of the messages ABC obtained. It's a shame that Foley is being hounded about sex. He had so many laws ready in the wings to make America safer from sexual predators. Now he won't get to bring them to the House floor. His colleagues will now regale us with the standard falderol about pressing needs and their desire to save America's children. Then they will promptly pass more laws to protect us from lawmakers? That would be a better idea.

I think Foley got confused when the education bill was passed during Bush's first term.."I thought you said, 'No Child's Behind Left Untouched." Maybe Foley has taken too many government programs to heart. "Don't Ask, Don't Text Message" comes to mind.

On a conspiratorial note, the FBI couldn't have been very happy with the shellacking it was taking from Foley.

"Obviously, this is something the Department of Justice needs to work on. Congress wanted the information in order to assemble a comprehensive database of missing children," Foley said.

A little payback? It does make me wonder why the FBI won't produce the information. Perhaps they're saving those runaway kids for themselves? We can't let Congress have all the fun after all. Or maybe, the "epidemic" described by any number of handwringers, is vastly overstated? That is the government's specialty after all, solving non-existent problems or creating problems that they can later not solve so as to whine they are underfunded.

But seriously folks, if somebody offers your teenagers an exciting job as a Congressional staffer, maybe Camp Manitoba would be a better choice.

demidog, foley, hypocrisy

Malkin's intentional deceit exposed

This article in the village voice does much to show how the dumbest member of the Witches of War Ick supports institutionalized racism. And she misleads in order to make her point.

The signal-to-noise ratio here is so slender that one is tempted to just accept Malkin's coy interpretation of them at face value. But in actually reading the evidence, Malkin's shell game becomes apparent. The appendix "Richard Kotoshirodo" excerpts the interrogation of a clerk at the Japanese consulate in Honolulu, who admits to assisting his employers by observing U.S. warships in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. Kotoshirodo was a kibei, born in the U.S. but sent back to Japan for schooling. This is an important distinction, as the Japanese-indoctrinated kibei were seen as more likely to have suspect loyalty. Yet in the caption to the blurry transcript, Malkin refers to "spy ring aide" Kotoshirodo as a "Nisei . . . [testifying] about his loyalty to Japan before an Internee Hearing Board." Casually eliding his kibei status lends weight to her assertions about nefarious native-born Japanese Americans. This is no accident; in the caption to the Kotoshirodo mug shot, she again IDs him as a nisei.

demidog, malkin, hypocrisy

America's "Finest" threaten to kill 7 year-old girl during traffic stop

In the interest of homeland security I presume, Officer Eric Tatusko of the Pittsburgh police department drew his sidearm and threatened a seven year old girl.

“I said, ‘What’s the problem, officer?’ and he said ‘Get your hands up,’” wrote Lawton in a prepared statement. “He repeated, pulled out his gun and pointed into the passenger side of the window where my youngest daughter was trying to get her seatbelt off. So, I put my hands up.” According to Lawton, she and her children spent the next 20 to 30 minutes trying to convince Officer Eric Tatusko to put his weapon down or to at least go to the driver’s side to address the problem with the only adult in the car. “The children were in the car screaming and crying,” she wrote. “My hands were still in the air and I was screaming ‘Help, someone help!’ over and over again.”

The Witches of War Ick

One day, I think it would be fun to actually get paid for depositing my opinion on the door steps or browsers of America. The first thing that might come to the minds of my fair readers is the pidgeon but this is allegedly the land of opportunity and I am entitled to a dream or two now and then. I only mention this in the interest of disclosure since I am not degreed, and the closest I've ever been to college was either marching at halftime Fiesta Bowl activities in 1980, an electronics class in 1986, and a couple of band appearances.

In short, I have absolutely no "credentials."

During my twenty-year career in the high-tech industry, I have worked with many degreed professionals, a good portion of which did not appear to have learned much about their trades in college. Having learned my profession from those who *did* learn something in college, I feel qualified to know the difference between somebody who is good at what he does, and one more suited to flipping burgers than writing software.

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin fall into the second category if one is judging journalists. As a journalist, I probably fall into the latter category. However, I do not pretend to actually be a journalist.

Ann Coulter and Malkin both seem to be in a competition to see who can write most offensive and badly researched works of punditry. Malkin's work defending racial profiling "In Defense of Internment" has been well-received by Limbauts but is a grossly inaccurate reporting of events that occurred during WWII when thousands of Japanese Americans were stripped of their freedoms. The object apparently is to justify today's "internments" and renditions of those the Bush administration considers enemy combatants. I sure hope, for Malkin's sake, we do not feel the need to crack down on terrorists originating from the Philippine Archipelago.

When Malkin isn't shilling for the federal government's racist programs of the "good old days" she's defending Guantanamo, something even George Bush wants to end (or did a few months ago), if you are one of the few who believes he actually tells the truth.

Coulter is well known for her statements denigrating Muslims, claiming that any and all who disagree with the war are nothing short of treasonists, and that the Abu Ghraib scandal was something that liberals would actually enjoy were they to be able to visit the place.

The Latter statement may have been tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, this is the same woman who, when interviewed by O'Reilly in 2004, claimed that Iraq was just as safe if not more safe than Washingon D.C. - hmmm - maybe she's right - both are targets of strict gun-control by the U.S. Federal government - but I digress.

I was happy to see Anne get bitch-slapped by the brave widows of 9/11 victims after her slanderous accusations of them.

I have never in my life encountered women who have ever been this rude or crammed so much violence and false bravado in their "work". Therefore, I dub these two the Witches of War Ick. I know that there were three in John Updike's masterpiece, but I can't find a third who can live up to the same level of vapidity.

Dick Cheney might just fit the part of Daryl Van Horne.

Compare and Contrast

George Bush, September 18, 2003:

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th

.

George Bush, September 6, 2006:

One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror..."

Any questions?

Doctor Albrecht, I Presume - Name Dropping Alert.

I haven't congratulated my friend, Katherine Albrecht for completing her Harvard doctorate program. Yes, she graduated in June, but better late than never. If you haven't checked out spychips.com or the book Spy Chips, which she co-authored with Liz McIntyre, get thee to Amazon or your favorite book store and buy it.

Congratulations Dr. Albrecht.

I can't imagine...

"a guy like bin Laden understanding the joys of Hanukkah.."

George Bush

A Cast of Thousands?

William L. Anderson writes:

The conspiracy theorists, I suppose, believe that the super-smart federal agents they see on Fox and other network shows, not to mention the movies and Chuck Norris movies are the norm, as opposed to being fictitious characters.

The kind of conspiracy that people are trying to convince me would have been needed for the government to pull off this attack would have required thousands of people to act with near-perfect timing, and that no one would talk. Another problem comes when people declare that since the Bush Administration benefitted initially from the attacks, it must have planned them.

Sorry, but this is a very tired cliche, and it happens to also be a tautology.

9.11 was the result of a conspiracy. Duh. But who conspired? 12 "hijackers?"

The best way to carry off an attack and avoid the government's agents, is to run it from the inside. This is so obvious as to require no further evidentiary support. Time and time again, the "inside job" has netted favorable results for criminals.

The Mafia has long been known to corrupt government officials in order to avoid guilty verdicts or even prosectution without detection. We know they've done this because occassionally, they get caught. But more often they do not.

William here totally poo-poo's the possiblity of an inside job, erects another strawman argument, and totally ignores history to boot.

When PNAC indicates their designs would take much longer unless America experienced another "Pearl Harbor", more scrutiny than just a hand-wave should be directed at their choice of example. Pearl Harbor has chilling similarities to 9.11. About 9 Pentagon officials are said to have known of Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan. Nine. Those nine, having full control over the US Military, are all that were needed.

One Admiral ordered the bulk of the fleet to leave Pearl Harbor before it was attacked, allowing the losses to be great enough to insure war, but not so great that war couldn't be waged. William may assert that those Captains and naval enlistees who followed orders were involved in the conspiracy to bring the US into WWII, but I find that laughable.

Just prior to 9.11, one man, recently given the power to do so, Dick Cheney, ordered the bulk what might have been early intercepts for the hijacked airplanes to locations far away from the East Coast for training excercises. Was NORAD then part of the conspiracy? Or were they merely following orders and confused due to drills in progress?

Were the thousands of FEMA personnel sent to New York on September 10th aware of anything? Would they have to be aware? Is it merely a coincidence that they were to conduct training excercises on the 12th?

This strawman argument that "thousands upon thousands" had to have intimate knowledge of the conspiracy is absurd and should be abandoned as it makes those who repeat it look foolish. Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin...these are to be ignored because apparently it is more fun to deride people who consider possibilities other than the official story, then actually examine the current available evidence.

I don't have any idea who was specifically responsible for 9.11. I do know that the government's actions in the aftermath are very damning and many of the official explanations of what happened are downright lies.

By the way, William, I haven't had a television in my home for over 11 years.

The Grave Dangers of Self-Defense

A really fun piece from Stefan Molyneux at Lew Rockwell.

The logical – and moral – problem with this is, of course, that if people exist who cannot defend themselves from mere individual criminals, how on earth can they possibly defend themselves against the state? In other words, if you’re afraid of being exploited by violent people, is armed might of the modern state somehow less dangerous than an individual mugger?

Norm, Charles, Give me a break.

Norman Singleton and Charles Featherstone are congratulating each other over at Lew's Blog for their "reasonable" conclusions about the whacko conspiracy theorists out there.

Those of us who think that the government is capable and willing to carry off something like 9.11 are just not that bright. Norman writes:

These people were likely taught at a very young age that the government had the power to make all things right and protect them from all evil. Thus, they cannot accept that the government could be so incompetent as to fail to stop something like the 9-11 attacks.

Earth to Norm, all of us, unless homeschooled were taught this. Some grew up and abused ourselves of our ignorance.

Charles has a similar view:

Those peddling the view that the attacks of September 11 were an "inside job" are selling the idea of an omniscient government, one that controls all and is capable of everything. They also have a strange faith in technology -- that it simply cannot fail in strange and unpredictable ways. Not to mention the belief that nothing happens by accident, and that everything is somehow planned in advance

Listen guys, I'm not stupid, and neither are many of those who follow the research. Contary to the strawman arguments you've both raised, there are other possibilities.

WT7 wasn't hit by an airplane. That was a demolition. There is no controversy there as it is the only valid explanation for the way it collapsed.

Controlled Demolition, the same company that was responsible for carting away the evidence from the OKC bombing, received the contract for carting away 9.11 evidence a mere 11 days after the event. That is a fact. Government *never* operates that fast.

The same sort of thing occurred at Waco. All of the evidence that might have given credence to surviving Branch Davidian's claims that the BATF fired first, was destroyed before investigators could look at it. The steel front doors were important. Gone forever. What did the government have to hide?

Why not stage the main core columns somewhere local instead of shipping them to China and India? That would have allowed investigators to completely debunk the "conspiracy theorists."

But in point of fact, those who believe that 19 (oops 12) terrorists from the Middle East were able to execute this action are also conspiracy theorists. So it is all a matter of perspective, which is the acceptable theory? The one put out by researchers with nothing in particular to gain, or the government which has been so honest to us? Who benefitted from 9/11? The terrorists? Or the government and in particular PNAC the agenda of which government is now enacting verbatim?

You can claim the government is evil and incompetent when it comes to the wars it is fighting or the lies it is telling to justify those wars, but it's just too "out there" to consider that they would go so far as to kill their own citizens in order to advance an agenda. Perish the thought. Where did that perspective come from guys? Private school?

Libertarians: Hold Fast

As the campaigns for power heat up this fall, a variety of populist pundits and candidates will continue to beat the drums of fear and war. As "Internet 2.0" is to the various hype-masters of Internet enthusiasts, so is immigration for the Republicans. On the "left" a plethora of democratic politicians who voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will either tout their anti-war "credentials", claim that they were duped by the administration, or let us know their favorite "exit-strategy."

As libertarians, we get to vote for our favorite libertarian candidates knowing that they probably will not win. However, in doing so, we'll gain satisfaction knowing we didn't give approval to anyone representing the largest freedom-hating organizations in America, Congress and the Executive branches of Federal and State governments.

The aftermath of 9.11 has seen libertarians divided to some degree. I witnessed some online friends whom I thought were libertarians favor the wars in Afghanistan and and Iraq. I have also seen libertarians such as Ron Paul come out against "illegal" immigration.

Personally, I have little respect for any so-called libertarian who supports giving the government more power no matter how good the reasons may sound. I don't think I'm alone. But being on the other side of both of these debates hasn't been easy either.

Libertarians have had a number of detractors on the matter of immigration. The Libertarian Party's platform used to advocate "open borders." Sadly, those who recently hijacked the party have changed the immigration plank in complete disregard for libertarian ideals. All we need now is for Pat Buchanan to announce his intent to run as a libertarian and the destruction of the Party will be assured as it was when he ruined the Reform Party.

To those who continuously bash "illegals", their reasoning demands that a person coming into the United States show the pre-requisite "reasonable" legal documents and subject themselves to searches, giving up their rights to privacy and to travel freely. If they refuse to do this, then they are "illegal".

Because they are not citizens, we are supposed to stand for this.

What of our rights? What just law can demand an obligation to hire only naturalized citizens in our businesses or private homes? Recently, the city of council Hazelton, PA, passed ordinances which fine landlords one thousand dollars per day anyone who rents to an "illegal" alien and make English their "official" language.

"What I'm doing here is protecting the legal taxpayer of any race," said the dapper 50-year-old mayor, sweeping his hands toward the working-class city outside. "And I will get rid of the illegal people. It's this simple: They must leave ."

The Mayor's efforts are already "paying off" - proving that as usual, government is the problem rather than the solution.

The law doesn't take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent," Barletta says. "The message is out there."

There is no reason for any libertarian to avoid, or apologize for, opposition to solution(s) in current fashion. All of the proposed solutions punish both citizens and immigrants alike.

The war on illegal immigration is as full of hyperbolic vapidity as is the war on terrorism. We will hear any number of arguments for protecting our borders. "We need a Fence" is among the scariest to anyone old enough to remember the Berlin Wall. Those who support this are apparently able only to see one side of the issue and, coincidentally, one side of a wall. If you have come into casual contact with walls and have even the slightest cognizant ability, you recognize that a wall has two sides. A wall keeps people in at the same time it keeps people out. The number of folks who have jumped on the bandwagon is frightening.

Far from being a slippery slope, the problems inherent in branding anyone without a proper set of documents on their person, illegal, are already upon us. The powers that be are already punishing "legal" persons in the name of safety.

It would be a pity if those libertarians of influence whom are left, play the populists in order to seek expansion of their own influence. It was the dogged devotion to the ideals of liberty which swayed me to become a libertarian and it is that same devotion which will win over those inclined to reason. Those who have jumped on bandwagons have discredited themselves. Think about it. All arguments against the libertarian philosophy are rooted in a fear of liberty itself!

"Why, think of how many terrorists could enter the country with 'open borders'!" "What would happen if everyone owned guns?!!" "What would happen if just anyone had children." "If we didn't outlaw plastic forks on airplanes, there'd be so many more terrorist attacks!" If you're talking about the issue with others, try these counter arguments on for size.

• A border is not a property boundary except by coincidence. It is a demarcation of legal jurisdiction.
• The constitution does not state that liberties are reserved to citizens. Quite the contrary, the first, fourth and fifth amendments use the words "people" and "persons."
• Walls have two sides and prohibit crossing from either side equally well.
• The right to travel freely, without molestation or perturbance is well established common law.
• Rights are not established by geography but by birth. A Mexican is presumably born with the same rights as any other American.
• No passage in the constitution gives Congress any legal jurisdiction over foreign travel. The only passage that relates is Congress' power to write the statutes determining citizenship.

The LP has completely gone mad, but I do hope that the real libertarians will hold fast. In the long run, it will be our saving grace. There may be no more "Party of Principle" but the individuals who count themselves as libertarians can keep to theirs.

No ID? No Problem.

Over on Looking Glass News is this gem describing how to fly without an ID. What you say? It's the law! You have to have a government ID to fly! Nope.

told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane.

I am definitely going to try this next time I have to fly.

How Much Do We Really Owe?

Interesting article at buzzflash regarding the actual U.S. Federal debt and deficit.

But wait, there's more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is "probably closer to $65 trillion."

The Bush administration isn't truthful? Come on. Buncha partisans....

Medved: Genocide Is OK If Your Motives Are Pure

"The way to judge the morality of a military effort isn’t to consider the level of enemy death and suffering but to examine the purpose for which that destruction has been inflicted."

Michael Medved

Don't Believe Everything you Read

Wired News has had to pull at least three stories by writer Philip Chien due to faked sources. It doesn't just happen to the New York Times apparently....