Friday, December 07, 2007

7 Facts About the Dangerous Moonbat

So today Omelas got tagged with a little chain-blog-comment. Well, it's the internet. You know it had to happen. Fitness for the Occasion. I'll drop the rules of the game next, but first I'll explain how I'm hijacking it. Part of what's happened to the word "liberal" is that we liberals don't define the story of why liberals choose to be so. Instead, the conservatives define it on a range of misguided, to thievery, to debauchery, always lacking of any fundamental values. If someone asked you what political goals you pursed, you could rattle off: reproductive rights, public education, free press, fair wages, human rights, environmental conservation. Almost a year ago, I was involved in a conversation with several liberal and conservative friends of mine, when we tried to work out definitions of the motivations of both political philosophies. What did the words "big government" mean? What is government for? What did we believe citizens were responsible for and capable of doing? When you strip out actual legislative differences, are we so distant from each other? Some conservatives love to just say, "we are fulfilling the plan of God." Here's how your moonbat defines "liberal:"

"I believe as a liberal that we can build a society and establish a government that encourages the best in people while hedging against the worst. I believe that just as we inherited from the common past, we become obligated to invest in the common future. I believe that just as we strive to be good people, we strive as a people to be a good nation. I believe that we as humans have the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the guarantee of this is the proper pursuit of the governments formed by the people. I believe in a commitment towards society will produce the foundation and security upon which individual citizens may then build a good life."


So I'm sharing seven facts about the measure of me as a liberal:

1. I used to hate Starbucks. When conservatives started hating Starbucks and equating it with being yucky liberals to drink there, my eyes were suddenly opened to the virtues of Starbucks. I now love Starbucks.

2. I honestly think if you don't recycle you aren't good enough to be a liberal.

3. Conservatives are onto something when they try to ban books that introduce atheism, people having sex outside of marriage, and liberal values, or talk about other cultures. They are right, exposure will diminish their arguments that their opinions are best. However, I feel no pity for them and they will never win the battle of ideas. I am all for using book donations anywhere to increase the number of liberals. I remember reading all those Morgan the Unicorn stories. I no longer believe in unicorns, but I still believe there is no better good than kindness.

4. A man in a uniform turns me on. Oh, soldier boy!!

5. I remember the day I could no longer squash bugs and spiders. I was the only child my mother had who was unafraid. Even my brother was afraid. My sister brought me into the basement to squash a spider on the door going out into the backyard. He face was red with disgust. The huge wolf spider crouched down when I approached it. But it sat there, awaiting it's impending doom, trapped in the hope that the door would open instead and it could go back outside. Not human hope. I don't think they have human emotions. But spider hope, it's own version of faith in how the universe works and would deliver it from this strange exile. We looked at each other for a long time, and I opened the door instead.

6. I measure my life largely against my sister. When we all went to my mother's relatives in Massachusetts for Thanksgiving, I was sulking because I was sure she'd be in a skirt, and therefor she would be the better daughter. When my mother pointed out that she had not arrived with a skirt, I was still not satisfied. All of it is a deep cover for the fact that she has children and I do not. There are books and books of photographs of her babies all over the place, and I will never give anything to my family that produces as much delight as those babies. I want to have a baby. Psychologists aren't kidding when they talk about sibling rivalry.

7. I was raped seven years ago at a college party. Not the kind, at least, with a danger of pregnancy. I'd had a lot of coconut rum and went to crash on the bed of a friend. I woke up to find her boyfriend rutting top of me. She woke up to find me kicking him. She rolled over and started punching me in the head. I pretended to fall unconscious and she stopped. Her boyfriend remarked that he guessed that I didn't like what he was doing. She replied it was still not acceptable for me to kick him. They fell asleep. I crept out. The next day he told everyone I was a good time. She pretended like I didn't exist. I never told anyone the truth. And I'm a feminist. I couldn't trust people enough to go to class, to even go to the mess hall and eat. I flunked out. I drive new friends away before they can plot against me. Even to this day I experience vivid memory flashes from that night every time I go into a stranger's home.

I believe what we experience in our lives makes us moral actors. Who knows how many of the things that happen to us slowly build up to make us the liberal that we are today. None of what I have shared can be neatly dissected into little explanations of how they cause me to be a liberal. But in them is something important. Hospitality, kindness to people in pain, understanding the universe, and even a love of babies. Some injustice, yes. And some things odd or out of place. But human. And liberal.

Blogs I've tagged: Ketchup is a Vegetable and Stealth Badger.
They get the love because they are my only semi-regular comment-girlies.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Fans Show Love for the Writers' Strike



So today we are going to spread around the brownie points in honor of the growing blogger support for the writers' guild strike. Also some love for those blogging to show their non-guild writer's support for the fight against studio greed. One blogger comments that a division between studios and the better writers may find those writers using the internet to sell direct to the fans and cut out the studios themselves. Interesting concept. Elsewhere, it's plain to people that the advent of webisodes aren't an advertisement for a show but just allow networks not to pay writers. And here's one blogger's letter in support of the strike to the AMPTP. Brownie points even for the hot Republican chicks who quote Ann Coulter.

The strike goes to the heart of respecting work again in this country. What the guild has been seeking in negotiations is "exceedingly reasonable" to Republicans who read up on the issue, and it's great to see there's some hope labor issues can be seen as nonpartisan. Even though the actors of the Office have shut down their show in support of the WGA by calling out sick, it's great to see the overwhelming support of their fans. We even have a mega-site now for all fans to show their love, so check it out!!

Labels: , ,

Monday, May 14, 2007

Military Draws Iron Veil Over Combat in Iraq


So today the Pentagon pulled the plug on soldiers posting hand cam shots of combat in Iraq by using free access through Defense Department computers. If soldiers find the cash to shill out, they can continue to upload through private Internet cafes. For as long as they remain open on military bases, one imagines. However, access to such cafes remains limited to the large forward operating bases, the very ones that the new new new new newest strategy seeks to disband, for bases much smaller and Internet-free. American soldiers in Iraq are banned from youtube.com, pandora.com, photobucket.com, myspace.com, live365.com, hi5.com, metacafe.com, mtv.com, ifilm.com, blackplanet.com, stupidvideos.com and filecabi.com.

Officials claim the measure is necessary because even in the fifth year of occupation, the American military's Internet access still sucks, and that it's in no way a massive block of footage that shows that anything in Iraq sucks. Meanwhile, the Defense Department plans to continue to upload it's own footage onto those sites showing more a positive "boots on the ground" perspective.



Stars and Stripes runs the WaPost story as "Pentagon limits troops' web access" at the top of its news cycle, and at the bottom the story "soldiers face punishment over blogs."
"Soldiers will be punished if they publicly reveal sensitive information, such as troop movements, planned raids, travel itineraries of senior leaders, or photographs of casualties, new technology or other material that could compromise their location."

Also running is a news story on a new incentives program to try to get officers to not get the hell out. One imagines there are no plans to throw in free Dells with free wireless access.

Everyone's scrambling to spin the story, but a soldier's perspective cuts the cake. Noted down as horrendous sensationalism are mere lines reporting the measure at all, and the AP gets denounced for hiding all the relevant facts of the story by using the means of actually reporting them. No one believes anything they read in the MSM because of all that liberal bias, so of course the most diabolical way to hide the facts are to actually report them. Then the AP is slammed because there is no possible way to report all the facts in the same sentence at once, and so merely having to report any one fact before any other fact is liberal bias.

Human speech is liberal bias, and it's all the AP's fault. Why don't they teach these things in school eh? Speaking of school, take your average public college, thousands of students in dormitories, and the ability to handle all those social lives and JSTOR at the same time. Ah the wonder of the modern information age.

Perhaps the military's new motto really is "what happens in Iraq, stays in Iraq."



Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, February 16, 2007

Modern Witchhunt Kills Fetus, Imprisons Mother

So today Connecticut officially is on probation as a State and if the March 2 sentencing phase of Julie Amero's wrongful conviction sends this innocent woman to jail, they need to just be expelled from the Union. Seriously. Imagine volunteering your time as a substitute teacher, retired after a career as an underpaid kindegarten teacher, during a high risk pregnancy, panicking when a trojan horse floods the classroom computer with porn pop-ups, getting arrested by the baying mob of local townspeople lead by an ethically-challenged detective (investigated for giving beer to minors on the job), locked up, slapped with charges that carry a 40 year sentence.

And then you miscarry the preciously wanted baby you and your husband have sought for years and endured a great deal of fertility treatments to conceive and cherish.

And then... you get found guilty because you didn't wear a burqah to work like a real modest woman and the judge for your trial is Sleeping Beauty. All because a few 7th-graders saw a still-frame of a blowjob for a couple of seconds before you physically pushed them away from the computer. Pretty much makes everyone else's spam story pale in comparison. The only way Conneticut can redeem itself at this point is if the prosecutor and the detective/"expert witness" are placed in stocks in the town square so that we may all go to boo.

Julie originally faced ten counts of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21)....The statute punishes '[a]ny person who...unlawfully...permits any child under the age of 16 years to be placed in such a situation that...the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the...morals of any such child'." So at least 6 parents refused to join up in this witchhunt, leaving only those of the remaining 4 students. Why did she keep surfing after the second brief spat of pop-ups around 9 a.m.? Substitute teachers don't teach and aren't required to have teaching degrees; they babysit while students do worksheets or take tests. How could they jump into the middle of some else's lesson plans? They can't, so they don't. The teacher left the computer on so Julie could surf, so it was okay with the teacher who asked her to substitute! Why wasn't she wearing a burqah to shroud the computer? Women aren't forced to wear them in public in this country, and she wasn't wearing a sweater or coat either!

Why didn't she yank the cord? The tech answer is that you aren't supposed to do so:

There are significant forensic reasons not to simply unplug a misbehaving computer. Sure, the question now is whether there was malware, spyware, pop-ups, or possible a Trojan horse on the computer. But what if the computer was being actively attacked, through a Trojan or back-door? Turning off the CPU likely would prevent the tracking needed to find the source of the attack. Unplugging the computer, for example, would prevent the creation of certain registry entries that are created only when, for example, the browser is closed properly – such as the registry entry indicating what URLs were typed into the browser – an important evidentiary issue in this case.


Witchhunts spurn evidence; their purpose is to convict on any charge possible. What Connecticut doesn't want you to understand is that the porn pop-ups occurred as a result of links clicked before the start of class when students accessed the computer without permission while Julie was in the bathroom. Also that they appeared as the result of a malware called Pasco, which was likely picked up when the computer's user (the teacher?) accessed e-Harmony earlier that month. Also, the prosecution used a computer program called ComputerCop to examine the harddrive in question that can't tell if a site URL was typed into a computer, accessed via a link, or the result of malware, although the prosecution testified in the case that their program proved Julie had typed those several links from memory.

The judge reduced the defense's expert witness testimony to two single slides, showing what a legitamate website looks like, and what a psuedo-website that has been set up to infest a computer looks like. Please. If someone is making millions to fool surfers, a jury of people to stupid to get out of the duty isn't easy prey? Also, the prosecutor claimed the porn was visible "for hours" just for shock effect, when the pop-ups were visible for only a few minutes.

Defense witness W. Herbert Homer posted his complete analysis of the harddrive here, and all the testimony he wishes he could have given to save this innocent woman. His examination showed that the teacher logged on, surfed for a few minutes, and then Julie checked her AOL email. Around 0835, the computer access the psuedo-hairstyle site that activated the trojan horse program, that spat out a few porn pop-ups. The computer went inactive, showing that someone stoped the students (Julie). Then at 0920, the trojan horse activated another spat of porn pop-ups, and then activity ceased again. Homer was able to show that these were indeed pop-ups by the size of the images shown.

All of the jpg's that we looked at in the internet cache folders were of the 5, 6 and 15 kB size, very small images indeed. Normally, when a person goes to a pornographic website they are interested in the larger pictures of greater resolution and those jpgs would be at least 35 kB and larger. We found no evidence of where this kind of surfing was exercised on October 19, 2004


That the prosecution blocked the vast bulk of his testimony to sacrafice the truth in pursuit of a conviction to mollify the prudish parents (toting battery operated hedge clippers only their gardeners use because they've never even seen a real pitchfork) marks a witchhunt has occured. And. Its. 2007.

Julie's plight should matter to you, because another day, another time, another innocent click, and you'll face felony charges yourself. Nothing may save you and you may have no warning before just one pop-up makes you a criminal. Spyware is the dark boogyman of the explosive phenomenon of the internet, targeting 8 year-olds googling Barbie.

I have my own sob story. A visit to eHarmony to check out some guys, picked me up a trojan horse made by a company called "AffiliateTarget" using a search engine called "Gleaned." Which I had an IT friend puzzle out for me. I don't suggest attempting to access either of these companies websites... my blockers are just shutting down my browser each time I try so I can give you links. What happened to me? The software kicks in when you click on a link or send an email. It reroutes you to a flash advertisement for an online company (use your imagination, perverts!) and requires you to watch it or wait for it to download completely before it will give you an optional link to click out. It also apparently will just redirect you wholesale to another website and destroy your back-key link to wherever you were (I'm guessing for a higher fee). It also prevents you from using your copy key to copy an email or a blog to a word document before you sent. If it kicks in when you are sending email or posting a blog you loose everything. It even interrupted my webmail's spell checker, for frak's sake.

AffiliateTarget's website at the time had an email link that was broken, and only allowed you to "buy" the promotional software after proving you were a company. I contacted Gleaned who never responded. I contacted the BetterBusinessBureau in both Maryland and in Atlanta, Georgia where an online software reviewer Taming the Beast had given me the address for the company's owner. AffiliateTarget never responded, and failed to respond to the BBB, who then told me if the other party won't engage, they can't help you. A link so people don't think this is normal moonbat lunacy. And then it got much worse. IT told me that all I could do was wipe the computer and start over from scratch, and there was no way they were saving anything saved on it for me! $2500 of Gateway laptopiness now sits unuseable on my desk. At least I'm not behind bars.

Why does the law not protect us? Why aren't these sorts of malware and their creators prosecuted with the zeal shown for band students and toothless grandmothers downloading from Napster? They make money? They target people with content that causes immorality to be assumed by it's meer proximity? Prosecutors don't want to look into a television camera and say "penile enhancement?" I escaped once, but I don't kid myself, and my new laptop has 7 different malware programs that take 3 minutes searching my computer each time I turn it on. Who wants to be Julie, who could have accepted a probation plea that would have scrubbed her record but left her with the reputation as a pervert?

Who wants to end up in the good fight for the worst reason of all?

"I was sitting there looking at porno? I was sitting there pregnant," Amero says, before telling me too much about a private life publicly unraveled.

So why not just accept a probation offer that would have wiped her record clean?

"The baby," Amero, now 40, explains as we sit in her living room in rural Windham. She'd spent years trying to get pregnant before losing the child after her arrest.


Absolutely the worst reason. Protest! Like a lot. Cough up a benjamin. Right this frakking minute!! Before you end up lashed to the stake and watching that on coming match.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , ,