Harrisville, Michigan, became a victim of a Nigerian e-mail scam that has been making it's way around the planet for the last couple of years.
The town's treasurer fell for it and supplied the scammers with the town's bank account numbers, leaving him holding a very empty bag. The total cost: $186,500 in lost pensions, municipal operating funds, and other essential city resources. Now investigators believe that as much as $1.2 million may be missing from the county as well.
He lost $72,000 of his own money as well.
The former treasurer is up on embezzlement charges, but it won't bring their money back.
I think this is one of the first times that an entire city has fallen victim to this e-mail scam. What a disaster!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Democrats on Verge of Breaking Promise Not to Cut Funding to Troops in Iraq
The Democrats in Congress are on the verge of breaking their promise not to defund the troops in Iraq. This is hardly a surprise given many ran on anti-war platforms. And their defeatist Republican lap-dog colleagues are too weak and ineffectual to disagree with them. I believe de-funding was always inevitable--it's what the Democratic majority wanted all along.
But still, to cut off reinforcements and bullets and equipment to the soldiers who are over there now is irresponsible. And Congress will be unable to keep dodging their collective responsibility in authorizing the war in the first place. Their votes gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, whether his intel was good or not.
They keep saying they are a co-equal branch of government, yet they clearly don't want to take their share of the blame. They're co-equal all right, but only to a point.
The military needs to complete their mission and soon. We have bigger fish to fry and Iraq is taking up too much time, attention and resources. Blindly cutting their funding to bring them home in six months without a measure of success will only make the situation worse, not better.
All that will happen is the next President will have the unenviable task of sending troops back in once terror groups use Iraq the same way they used Afghanistan to attack New York and Washington. And Congress will blame Bush for that too, for stopping the war too soon.
And this will be after Congress and the next Administration decide to slash military rebuilding funds, too.
What a vicious cycle we find ourselves facing.
But still, to cut off reinforcements and bullets and equipment to the soldiers who are over there now is irresponsible. And Congress will be unable to keep dodging their collective responsibility in authorizing the war in the first place. Their votes gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, whether his intel was good or not.
They keep saying they are a co-equal branch of government, yet they clearly don't want to take their share of the blame. They're co-equal all right, but only to a point.
The military needs to complete their mission and soon. We have bigger fish to fry and Iraq is taking up too much time, attention and resources. Blindly cutting their funding to bring them home in six months without a measure of success will only make the situation worse, not better.
All that will happen is the next President will have the unenviable task of sending troops back in once terror groups use Iraq the same way they used Afghanistan to attack New York and Washington. And Congress will blame Bush for that too, for stopping the war too soon.
And this will be after Congress and the next Administration decide to slash military rebuilding funds, too.
What a vicious cycle we find ourselves facing.
French Darken Eiffel Tower to Promote Climate Change Concerns: Meaningless Display
In an effort to bring attention to an upcoming conference on global change, the electrical company that operates the lights on the Eiffel Tower in Paris will shut them off for five minutes.
Five WHOLE minutes on ONE evening.
Why don't they turn the lights off after 11pm EVERY night--on a permanent basis, except for the aircraft warning lights at the top of the tower? That would be more meaningful than turning the lights off for five minutes on one evening.
I wonder how much energy and money will be wasted when they power the projectors back up. I believe they will use up more energy than if they had simply left the lights on.
Wasteful publicity stunt. Perhaps they should let Greenpeace keep it's banner on the tower--that seems more effective way to bring attention to global climate change.
Five WHOLE minutes on ONE evening.
Why don't they turn the lights off after 11pm EVERY night--on a permanent basis, except for the aircraft warning lights at the top of the tower? That would be more meaningful than turning the lights off for five minutes on one evening.
I wonder how much energy and money will be wasted when they power the projectors back up. I believe they will use up more energy than if they had simply left the lights on.
Wasteful publicity stunt. Perhaps they should let Greenpeace keep it's banner on the tower--that seems more effective way to bring attention to global climate change.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Child Rape Movie Appears to Be a Dud: They're Talking Going Straight to DVD
This is my final post on this movie, unless someone says something really outrageous and deserves some attention.
I'm still fuming over the Hounddog movie (that features a child rape scene) over the moral lines that it succeeds in crossing.
Dakota Fanning remains in the news, telling the media that some of the criticism leveled at her and her parents have been "uncalled for and hurtful."
She and her parents should have thought about the storm of controversy before they "decided" to do this movie and offend so many people; not the least of whom are rape victims and sexual molestation survivors. Many are coming forward and posting their thoughts online.
Just because child rape is a fact of life doesn't make it right, or acceptable, or something to be worthy of presentation in a movie. That's what has people so hot.
Some of the criticisms that have been expressed about her mother have been harsh; the minor tongue-lashing I administered in my last post pale in comparison.
But "uncalled for?" She's playing an adult game in an adult world under adult rules, and if she can't take the heat for her (and her mom's) bad decisions, perhaps she should stick to more appropriate venues, such as her recent film "Charlotte's Web", which was brilliantly executed and did more to further her career than a child-rape scene in an adult-themed movie.
It's pure exploitation and the proof is in what happens before the rape scene: reportedly her character dancing in wet underwear and t-shirt, her waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her, her demanding that a young boy expose himself in exchange for a kiss, doing some kind of provocative pole dance, and then a teenager raping her.
And she really should stay out of the news on this controversy. She doesn't have enough life experience or judgment to speak on this issue or lecture adults on whether child rape is any more acceptable on the big screen than it is in real life.
"It's just acting" she says, but that's the tip of the iceberg. If acting out a scene causes a huge tidal wave of controversy, then they should probably find out more about what the underlying issue is.
This is also where her parent(s)--and all the other parents of children in this film--should have put their foot down and said "I won't allow this. It's crossing too many lines and you don't want this kind of bad publicity at this stage of your career" or "And as a parent, I object to the very idea of my child participating in a movie like this."
That's it from me.
I'm still fuming over the Hounddog movie (that features a child rape scene) over the moral lines that it succeeds in crossing.
Dakota Fanning remains in the news, telling the media that some of the criticism leveled at her and her parents have been "uncalled for and hurtful."
She and her parents should have thought about the storm of controversy before they "decided" to do this movie and offend so many people; not the least of whom are rape victims and sexual molestation survivors. Many are coming forward and posting their thoughts online.
Just because child rape is a fact of life doesn't make it right, or acceptable, or something to be worthy of presentation in a movie. That's what has people so hot.
Some of the criticisms that have been expressed about her mother have been harsh; the minor tongue-lashing I administered in my last post pale in comparison.
But "uncalled for?" She's playing an adult game in an adult world under adult rules, and if she can't take the heat for her (and her mom's) bad decisions, perhaps she should stick to more appropriate venues, such as her recent film "Charlotte's Web", which was brilliantly executed and did more to further her career than a child-rape scene in an adult-themed movie.
It's pure exploitation and the proof is in what happens before the rape scene: reportedly her character dancing in wet underwear and t-shirt, her waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her, her demanding that a young boy expose himself in exchange for a kiss, doing some kind of provocative pole dance, and then a teenager raping her.
And she really should stay out of the news on this controversy. She doesn't have enough life experience or judgment to speak on this issue or lecture adults on whether child rape is any more acceptable on the big screen than it is in real life.
"It's just acting" she says, but that's the tip of the iceberg. If acting out a scene causes a huge tidal wave of controversy, then they should probably find out more about what the underlying issue is.
This is also where her parent(s)--and all the other parents of children in this film--should have put their foot down and said "I won't allow this. It's crossing too many lines and you don't want this kind of bad publicity at this stage of your career" or "And as a parent, I object to the very idea of my child participating in a movie like this."
That's it from me.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
12-Year-Old Child Actress Defends Her Child-Rape Scene in New Movie: She Has No Idea What She's Done
It's more than a little offensive when a 12-year-old not only participates in a simulated brutal child-rape scene in a movie, but then defends her "decision" and says that the controversy is "blown out of proportion." I think not.
Her parents ought to exercise some parental authority and keep her out of the limelight for a while. Then again, maybe they should have their heads examined too, for green-lighting this scene in the first place. What were they thinking?
This is a line that shouldn't have been crossed. Some groups are saying that there should be a federal probe to see if any laws were broken. I support that idea.
The big question (among many) is whether the scene is simulated child pornography (which is illegal in the United States.) It doesn't sound like it's actual child porn under this definition, but the laws on simulated porn are very complex and do not necessarily involve nudity--or even kids (see above link).
It doesn't matter that Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster played controversial roles in films when they were young too--the laws concerning child welfare are much stricter now and this controversy should be looked at in the current climate, not in yesterday's.
If there is a federal probe, many of these troubling questions will be addressed, and this controversy will be with us for some time to come. But if there isn't, it will blow over quickly and Hollywood's reputation will take another (well-deserved) blow.
I will not be going to see this movie as I find the idea of child rape abhorrent and won't support an "artistic" portrayal of it in a movie or any other medium. And no 12-year-old has any business participating in or defending a child-rape scene. Does she have any idea the damage she's helped to do? I suspect she doesn't have a clue.
Her parents ought to exercise some parental authority and keep her out of the limelight for a while. Then again, maybe they should have their heads examined too, for green-lighting this scene in the first place. What were they thinking?
This is a line that shouldn't have been crossed. Some groups are saying that there should be a federal probe to see if any laws were broken. I support that idea.
The big question (among many) is whether the scene is simulated child pornography (which is illegal in the United States.) It doesn't sound like it's actual child porn under this definition, but the laws on simulated porn are very complex and do not necessarily involve nudity--or even kids (see above link).
It doesn't matter that Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster played controversial roles in films when they were young too--the laws concerning child welfare are much stricter now and this controversy should be looked at in the current climate, not in yesterday's.
If there is a federal probe, many of these troubling questions will be addressed, and this controversy will be with us for some time to come. But if there isn't, it will blow over quickly and Hollywood's reputation will take another (well-deserved) blow.
I will not be going to see this movie as I find the idea of child rape abhorrent and won't support an "artistic" portrayal of it in a movie or any other medium. And no 12-year-old has any business participating in or defending a child-rape scene. Does she have any idea the damage she's helped to do? I suspect she doesn't have a clue.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Chavez's Latest Tirade Against American Officials: "Go to Hell, Gringos!"
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said that U.S. officials should quit commenting on his country's problems (Chavez-caused, of course) and told American officials via the media "Go to hell, gringos!"
He's stifled dissent in his own country, now he's trying to stifle international coverage and commentary of his ruining his country.
Official Washington won't comment on his comments, but here's what they'd love to say:
Get over it, Mr. Chavez. First, go jump in a lake and cool off. Then go back to the zoo where you belong. Or perhaps you should follow your own advice.
What's not funny is his mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy. No economy can survive what he's doing for very long, and when their economy crashes in the next year to sixteen months, what will be funny is his attempts to kiss up to Washington for aid--if it gets that bad. Then we'll see if Washington has a long memory or not.
He's stifled dissent in his own country, now he's trying to stifle international coverage and commentary of his ruining his country.
Official Washington won't comment on his comments, but here's what they'd love to say:
Get over it, Mr. Chavez. First, go jump in a lake and cool off. Then go back to the zoo where you belong. Or perhaps you should follow your own advice.
What's not funny is his mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy. No economy can survive what he's doing for very long, and when their economy crashes in the next year to sixteen months, what will be funny is his attempts to kiss up to Washington for aid--if it gets that bad. Then we'll see if Washington has a long memory or not.
GI Attempting to Get Sleeping Mats Sent to Iraq Gets Nothing But Insults Back From Company: Disgraceful
An American soldier attempting to order some sleeping mats for his soldiers and himself got a rude e-mail back from the company he was attempting to order from, saying that if he had any sense, he and his men should get out of Iraq.
What a darn shame.
There's a time and a place to express one's views on Iraq, but not in the course of a business transaction, and not against a soldier who's trying to make life a little easier for the people in his unit. A simple "Sorry, we don't, but you may want to try..." would have been acceptable, but whoever was reading the e-mail had to choose that way to express his political views.
I would encourage people not to do business with this company.
What a darn shame.
There's a time and a place to express one's views on Iraq, but not in the course of a business transaction, and not against a soldier who's trying to make life a little easier for the people in his unit. A simple "Sorry, we don't, but you may want to try..." would have been acceptable, but whoever was reading the e-mail had to choose that way to express his political views.
I would encourage people not to do business with this company.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Hillary in '08: NO WAY JOSE
Hillary Clinton came out and announced she was forming an exploratory committee as a precursor for a run at the Presidency in 2008.
As promised on December 27, 2005, this blog will be partially dedicated to campaigning against her candidacy.
It's not that the country isn't ready to have a woman for it's President; it's that Senator Clinton isn't ready to be President of the country.
I stand by my words. Vote against Senator Clinton in 2008. Remember: if we get her, we get HIM too.
As promised on December 27, 2005, this blog will be partially dedicated to campaigning against her candidacy.
It's not that the country isn't ready to have a woman for it's President; it's that Senator Clinton isn't ready to be President of the country.
I stand by my words. Vote against Senator Clinton in 2008. Remember: if we get her, we get HIM too.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq Proves War Critics Over Here Wrong: They Will Bring the Battle to Our Own Streets
Remember the debate over the statement that "if we pull out of Iraq now, the terrorists will come over here and start killing us in our own streets?"
Critics of the war said "nope. Won't happen. That's pro-war propaganda."
I came out in support of the above statement on November 12, 2005, on this blog, saying that ..."and yes, if we leave before the job is done, we may as well put armed troops into our own streets because that's where al-Qaeda will show up next. Once American and foreign troops are gone from Iraq, the war will shift to Europe and North America and those parts of the world where Westerners have a presence.
The media is reporting today that al-Qaeda in Iraq tried to get terrorists into this country on student visas for the purpose of launching attacks on our civilian population.
Excuse me, but what more proof do the nay-sayers need, thousands of dead American civilians in body bags at their feet? Like I said before...they need to get their heads out of their butts!
Critics of the war said "nope. Won't happen. That's pro-war propaganda."
I came out in support of the above statement on November 12, 2005, on this blog, saying that ..."and yes, if we leave before the job is done, we may as well put armed troops into our own streets because that's where al-Qaeda will show up next. Once American and foreign troops are gone from Iraq, the war will shift to Europe and North America and those parts of the world where Westerners have a presence.
The peaceniks can go bury their heads in the sand if they want, but the problem will NOT go away that easily. Bin-Laden has said that he wants four million dead Americans before he will even consider stopping his jihad. Where, pray tell, might he find four million Americans? Not in Iraq. Not in Jordan or Indonesia. Not anywhere else in the world, but here in our own country. Duh!!
So for those stupid enough to believe that ending the Iraq War will appease bin-Laden, or any of his followers into not launching suicide attacks on the United States, think again. Get your heads out of your butts!"
The media is reporting today that al-Qaeda in Iraq tried to get terrorists into this country on student visas for the purpose of launching attacks on our civilian population.
Excuse me, but what more proof do the nay-sayers need, thousands of dead American civilians in body bags at their feet? Like I said before...they need to get their heads out of their butts!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Bush Criticizes Hanging of Saddam and Others: Did the Pot Just Call the Kettle Black?
President Bush told the press that he wasn't happy with how the Iraqi government executed Saddam Hussein, his half-brother and another aide who was in charge of Iraq's Revolutionary Court under Saddam's reign of terror.
Bush said that it looked like revenge killings to him.
Well, DUH!!
ALL death penalty cases are about revenge, even in this country.
Deterrence, my afterburner! When are people going to learn that some criminals crave death, and don't care that they might face a death penalty?
Who does the death penalty really deter? Those unlikely to commit a crime-- whether or not there is a death penalty, or the criminal who's made up his/her mind to kill or hurt someone?
The President has no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing the capital punishment systems of other nations, since the United States engages in death penalty barbarity itself.
This, coming from the man who, as governor, had more people executed during his time in office than any other governor in U.S. history.
I'd rather not hear another word about botched executions from President Bush or anyone in his Administration who isn't an ardent death penalty opponent. I don't have the stomach to listen.
Bush said that it looked like revenge killings to him.
Well, DUH!!
ALL death penalty cases are about revenge, even in this country.
Deterrence, my afterburner! When are people going to learn that some criminals crave death, and don't care that they might face a death penalty?
Who does the death penalty really deter? Those unlikely to commit a crime-- whether or not there is a death penalty, or the criminal who's made up his/her mind to kill or hurt someone?
The President has no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing the capital punishment systems of other nations, since the United States engages in death penalty barbarity itself.
This, coming from the man who, as governor, had more people executed during his time in office than any other governor in U.S. history.
I'd rather not hear another word about botched executions from President Bush or anyone in his Administration who isn't an ardent death penalty opponent. I don't have the stomach to listen.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
CNN Joins the Obama/Osama Slip-Up Crowd, Substituting the Senator's Name for the Terrorist's in Caption
CNN messed up last week and put Senator Barack Obama's name into a caption that was meant to read "Where's Osama?"The Situation Room's Wolf Blitzer apologized on-air and called Obama personally to apologize, but the gaffe is the latest in a string of accidental and intentional substitutions of Senator Obama's last name for bin-Laden's first name; CNN is definitely not the first to do this.
Numerous instances of this have happened since Senator Ted Kennedy uttered the first public instance of "Osama/Obama" and conservative talk show hosts picked it up to ridicule Kennedy and Obama.
It's easy to make a slip of the tongue since the two first names are similar in spelling and pronunciation. Osama. Obama.
Still, I'm not comfortable with with this kind of accidental or intentional name-calling. It comes across (to me) as calling someone a Nazi, a choice of words for which I have nothing but contempt.
Those who delight in calling the senator "Osama" really ought to come up with something that doesn't have racial overtones to it. This is just nasty.
Sunni Rage Builds Over Saddam Execution: All-Out Civil War is Now Within Realm of Possibilities
The Iraqi government's decision to execute Saddam Hussein is backfiring on them, big time.
Saddam was executed at the beginning of the Eid al-Adha holiday, on the day that the Sunnis were to begin the observance. Further, he was taunted by Shiite executioners in his last moments. Enraged Sunnis in Iraq and across the Arab world took to the streets and that anger isn't going away. It's worsening.
The taunting was inappropriate and the timing was simply terrible. Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam consider the other heretics, and this merely reinforces that belief.
By executing Saddam, they denied his other victims--living and dead--and their stories to be told in an Iraqi court of law and in Saddam's presence. They were all robbed of justice--all but 148, for whom Saddam was executed.
It's more likely that non-combatant Sunnis will join the fight against the Shiite government because they don't trust it, believe it's behind the attacks on the Sunni population, and doesn't respect their religious beliefs.
It's safe to say that Iraq is in more danger of fragmenting now than it was before the Iraqi government decided to be hasty and execute the former dictator, though he was causing no harm while he was in U.S. custody.
Was what the Iraqi government did justice for ALL of Saddam's victims, or could they have benefited by keeping this man tied up in court for years to come? The full scope of this man's reign of terror will never be fully explored now.
Saddam was executed at the beginning of the Eid al-Adha holiday, on the day that the Sunnis were to begin the observance. Further, he was taunted by Shiite executioners in his last moments. Enraged Sunnis in Iraq and across the Arab world took to the streets and that anger isn't going away. It's worsening.
The taunting was inappropriate and the timing was simply terrible. Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam consider the other heretics, and this merely reinforces that belief.
By executing Saddam, they denied his other victims--living and dead--and their stories to be told in an Iraqi court of law and in Saddam's presence. They were all robbed of justice--all but 148, for whom Saddam was executed.
It's more likely that non-combatant Sunnis will join the fight against the Shiite government because they don't trust it, believe it's behind the attacks on the Sunni population, and doesn't respect their religious beliefs.
It's safe to say that Iraq is in more danger of fragmenting now than it was before the Iraqi government decided to be hasty and execute the former dictator, though he was causing no harm while he was in U.S. custody.
Was what the Iraqi government did justice for ALL of Saddam's victims, or could they have benefited by keeping this man tied up in court for years to come? The full scope of this man's reign of terror will never be fully explored now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)