War in Iraq - Clock

1895 Days since the start of the War in Iraq

U.S. Military Casualties since the start of the War in Iraq

(Includes casualties from fighting in Afghanistan)

Deaths - 4594

Wounded - 30331

War in Iraq - Clock

1894 Days since the start of the War in Iraq

U.S. Military Casualties since the start of the War in Iraq

(Includes casualties from fighting in Afghanistan)

Deaths - 4594

Wounded - 30329

War in Iraq - Clock

1892 Days since the start of the War in Iraq

U.S. Military Casualties since the start of the War in Iraq

(Includes casualties from fighting in Afghanistan)

Deaths - 4591

Wounded - 30329

CNN Analysis of D.C. Madam Death Completely Flawed

CNN did a supposed analysis of theories on the death of D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. However, the said analysis was severely flawed. Here are some of the gaping holes in their "analysis."

1. CNN used C.D.C. statistics for suicide by "suffocation" to show that men and women use "hanging" as the method of suicide at almost the same rate. This is completely inaccurate. Although death by hanging does certainly cause suffocation, there are many other methods of suffocation used to commit suicide other than hanging. In fact, women choose the hanging method at a much lower rate than men.

2. CNN said that there is no dependable way to analyze handwriting. This is absolutely false and in fact, the FBI uses handwriting analysis when investigating crimes.

3. CNN uses hearsay from a supposed reporter who says that Ms. Palfrey told him that she would rather die than go to prison despite the fact that there are recordings of her stating that she would definitely not commit suicide so that she could defend herself in court and expose the government.

CNN has not done its job in uncovering the facts in this case. They have only parroted the information provided to them by the authorities.

Google - the new Microsoft?

What is it with companies that when they reach a certain size, they become almost completely unresponsive to their customers? From my experience, this is exactly what is happening with Google. I recently purchased a license for Google Earth Plus to replace a license that had expired under an old email address. To make the transition to the new subscription easier (or so I thought), I uninstalled the old version of Google Earth and installed the newest version so that I could enter my new license information within the new version. Sounds simple, right? It has been anything but simple. Upon starting the new version of Google Earth, the program attempts to log in using my OLD email address? Why is this happening? I removed the old version. However, there is something within the Windows registry or elsewhere that has maintained a record of my old license and email address. Ok, so I need help in registering the new license in the new program; I, therefore, contact the Google Earth Help Center (anything but "helpful") to find a solution to my problem. I try all of the recommendations within the help files and a couple that I found on the Google Earth Community forums. Nothing is resolved. Next step - try to reach a real person. In most corporations today, this is a daunting process. At Google, it's all but impossible. It took me 15 minutes of searching to finally be led to a form that will supposedly have my problem reviewed by a real person. My prediction - I will be referred to the exact "solutions" within the "Help Files" that I have already tried.

Note to Google - When I purchase a product, and it does not work as expected, I should not have to jump through five hoops simply to contact a real person for assistance. I cannot even begin to express how aggravating this has been for me.

Jason Scheuerman Victim of Army Negligence

Jason Scheuerman was a soldier who was suffering with severe depression and was caught with his rifle in his mouth, about to commit suicide while serving in Iraq. What did the United States Army brass do? They punished him and threatened him with Court Marshal, imprisonment and the possibility of being sodomized. What did Jason Scheuerman do in response to this punishment? He successfully committed suicide. In my opinion, his U.S. Army superiors are completely to blame. They could have made sure that Jason received the help recommended for him by the doctors who had evaluated him. They chose instead to deprive him of this help and to punish him physically and mentally. Have his superiors received any demotions or other punishment because of their actions toward Jason? Of course not.

If you serve below officer level in the U.S. Armed Forces, you are considered to be an expendable piece of machinery by your superiors, and if you have a physical or mental illness or injury, your superiors consider you to be defective. It's time to take this "defective" thought process out of the military and begin nailing some butts to the wall for causing the deaths of people like Jason Scheuerman.

Someone Needs to Reign In Phil McGraw

The so-called "Dr. Phil" needs to get a clue. Giving advice on a show as if he has the training of a psychologist or psychiatrist (which he does not) and making judgements about people without complete information or having a person completely evaluated by medical professionals should get this guy kicked off the air.

Recently, there was a "Dr. Phil" show about couples and husbands who are supposedly not pulling their weight. On that show, one of the men said that he had not been able to hold down a job because he could not wake up in the morning. Of course, Mr. McGraw jumped all over him. Trouble is, he never had the guy evaluated. Mr. "Know-it-all McGraw" doesn't know that what the guy was describing are typical symptoms of certain neurological conditions. I have one of them. It's called hydrocephalus. Before I received my shunt, I could not wake up in the morning without someone shaking me or my bed and calling my name loudly many times. Even then, the person waking me had to check on me to be certain that I had actually sat up and begun to get myself dressed. Disgracing a person with a possible neurological condition is probably the worst thing he could do. In my opinion, Mr. McGraw is a charlatan and a quack. He makes "off the cuff" remarks that are uninformed and damaging.

Now, I have read that his "team" has bailed out one of the teenagers accused of beating another girl who was invited to her "friend's" house. How intelligent is this? Information could come out on the show that could make evidence in the case inadmissible in court and cause these teens to never have to suffer the consequences of their actions. This would be a great injustice to the girl who was beaten.

If you care about restoring responsibility and sanity to the media, I urge you to boycott the "Dr. Phil" show and its advertisers. If people want "sensational" TV, that's fine. Let them watch something like Survivor or Big Brother. But a show that touts its host as being a "doctor" and giving helpful advice but does just the opposite should not be on the air at all.

KEEP YOUR #*@$ING ICONS OFF MY SYSTEM TRAY!!!

Yes, this is a rant. You have been duly cautioned.

What is it that makes a software company think that they have the right to invade my private property (my computer) and put something on it (or in it) that I did not specifically and expressly request that they put there? This is NOT a difficult concept. If I ask the cable TV company to come and install cable to our house, they do not install cameras too. If I have someone come to repair the roof of my house, they do not install a GPS device also. Why then, does a software company think it has the right (and why do they get away with) installing pieces of software that I do not want and did not request? I am sick of needing to install "blocking" software that keeps other software on my own machine from misbehaving. Anti-spyware, anti-virus, pop-up blockers, icon removers, etc. are all programs that a person needs to keep their computer clear of pests and safe from destruction and invasion by intruders. And if a malicious piece of software gets through and causes irreparable harm to my machine, I basically have no recourse. The piece of s**t who created the malicious software will most likely continue creating more software just like it until he gets caught, and the government gives him a job with the Department of Homeland Security.

This computer on which I am typing this blog post is mine. It was bought and paid for by me. No one has the right to install anything on it that I did not request to be installed. That goes for you too, Microsoft (MSN), Apple, Yahoo, Google, Sun and the rest of you large tech companies who think we cannot live without your icons in every corner of our browser and desktop space and have your software running whenever we start our computers. The only icons that I want in my system tray (and processes running on my machine at startup) are those related to programs that keep my computer running (safely) or that I use on a VERY frequent basis. Otherwise, if I need to use your software, I can take all of 5 seconds to click the "Start" button, locate your program on the menu and start it. It does not to be in my face. I did not buy my computer to have you advertise to me at every click of the mouse.

I am to the point of frustration where I think it will be worth my time to figure out how much of my time and money these companies are wasting in slowed computer response, locating and using programs to uninstall your programs, adjusting system settings, etc. and send bills to each of the companies that uses these "in your face" techniques. Right now, these companies have no respect for us, but if enough of us take action, they will pay attention. Heck, if we get organized, we could even get bill collectors after them if they refuse to pay us. But all I really want is to be left alone and to decide what I do and do not want on my computer. It is a simple concept. It is my right as a property owner.

"Protect America Act" Protects Violators of Civil Liberties

The "Protect America Act," as it was called, allowed unwarranted spying on innocent Americans. Bush fed several lies about the legislation to the Congress and the American public. He said that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) needed to be updated to account for new technology. In fact, FISA was specifically created to be neutral to technological advancements. There is absolutely NO new technology immune from interception with a warrant. The key word here is "warrant." Bush wanted the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. He wanted to completely circumvent the court so that no one would know on whom his administration was spying or why.

Bush has also claimed that the "Protect America Act" only authorizes spying on foreigners. This is another lie. Any American communicating with any person in a foreign country can be monitored without a warrant. Any phone call or email leaving the United States is fair game under this act. The fact is that spies and terrorists were already aware that they were being monitored. The difference that this act made is the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.

This act also protects companies like AT&T and Verizon from prosecution for their parts they played in the monitoring of U.S. citizens. No U.S. company or officer of said company should be exempt from prosecution if they violated the Constitution of the United States, no matter how wealthy or powerful.

The Constitution should be obeyed. The falsely named "Protect America Act" should be repealed. Please send Congress a message. Visit http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=81 to take action and keep this terrible piece of legislation from being renewed.

Satellite Loses Power

Weeks Away From Hitting Earth

What Aren't They Telling Us?

The report contains this sentence. "The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials..." Ok, either it does or it does not, and NASA knows. They knew what the satellite contained when it was put into orbit, so they know whether or not it contains hazardous materials. I am almost certain that it does, otherwise they would have made the definitive statement that it does not. My guess is that they are waiting to see where they think it might land before they decide whether or not they are going to make us aware of any "hazardous materials." If it lands in the ocean or a remote part of a continent (a high likelihood), they will not have to share with us any of that information because there is very little chance that anyone will get to the satellite wreckage before the government. However, if there is a strong possibility of the satellite coming down in a populated area, they will not be able to keep it quiet. There will be the possibility of harm to human beings from the crash itself and the spread of radiation and/or other materials. I think we have a right to know now. Our tax dollars helped put the thing into orbit, so let's have some "freedom of information" to know just what might be raining down upon us in a couple of weeks. I swear that this country becomes more like the former Soviet Union everyday. "We'll tell you what we want you to know."