Last week, the illustrious Ann Coulter did a blog post called THIS IS NOT A DRILL where she yet again takes people's quotes out of context and doesn't get the facts in an effort to make her enemy (which pretty much includes any Democrats and people who have even a slight liberal stance) look bad. When she gets it right she gets it mostly right. However, when she gets it wrong she gets it really wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Let's see:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, "the worst speaker in the history of Congress," explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: "We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect."

You're only partially right, Ann. First, calling Nancy Pelosi the "worst" is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't have much of an opinion of her really. But her quote was back in 2006. Things were much different two years ago. This quote in particular was in direct response to a plan that Bush outlined in an effort to cut gas prices. Bush's plan seemed to assume that the pumps at the gast stations were the problem and had less to do with the big oil companies and the situation in the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Explain this, Ann: Why are big oil companies getting no-bid oil contracts in Iraq? Even the New York Times said that no-bid contracts like this were unusual. And being that the current administration is all over Iraq, do you think maybe they had something to do with this? Even a little bit? Did Bush's energy plan in 2006 have anything to do with this? Probably not...but it wouldn't hurt to investigate it. Who the hell knows!

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: "President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay's oil-company interests." The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I'm not even "an oilman."

Ah-ha! First misquote and misrepresentation of facts.

First of all, the 2003 blackout wasn't just a "failure of humans". An investigation found that a failure to trim some trees in parts of Ohio may have been the main cause. However, there was a software bug in the computer systems as well that caused all sorts of problems. The end result was a cascading failure of systems that caused a massive blackout.

This particular event caused rise of many questions regarding the need to upgrade and modernize power grids to avoid catastrophic failures such as these. Many members of congress urged Congress for legislation of a new energy bill. Pelosi herself was among these members. But the efforts were muddled with fights about oil drilling and subsidies for nuclear power and environmental issues. The Bush administration was concentrating its efforts on oil drilling with the energy bill, of which Pelosi replied:

President Bush and Tom DeLay put the interests of the energy companies before the interests of the American people by insisting we drill in A.N.W.R. and other environmentally sensitive areas rather than modernize our energy system.

So, as usual, Ann, you took someone out of context and didn't read the facts. Don't assume you know enough.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of "American Idol."

Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than you. You may have graduated from Cornell University with a law degree but it doesn't look like you did much as a lawyer. Obama on the other hand graduated from Harvard, was a practicing attorney in Chicago, taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, and became the Senator of Illinois in 1996. You can't do all that if you're a moron. This guy is smart! Smarter than me! Smarter than you! He has more enough experience. He knows a hell of a lot more about what the Constitution says and what it implies than you do. Do you? Hell, when is the last time you've even read the Constitution?

Announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.

No, that's only one part an energy plan. More drilling is not a solution that has immediate effects. Even it we were to allow oil companies to start drilling in ANWR and other areas we won't see that oil for at least another 5 years. Pelosi was calling on Bush to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves now so that we can see some immediate effects on gas prices at least within the United States.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

Right, because a Hummer that gets 12 MPG isn't really a problem. And, um, an analogy about eating less? In a country that has a high rate of obesity that might not be a good analogy.

Conservation and efficiency is only a part of the plan but not an end to a means. No one can deny that using our energy more efficiently is a good thing. Hell, I use fluorescent light bulbs that have the output of a 60 watt light bulb and they only take up 16 watts. That's the sort efficiency we're talking about here.

But there's more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for "an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest." The "rest" is apparently what she called our "important and essential" investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

Sitting around and saying "Well, we can't do that! That's a waste of time!" isn't a solution either, Ann. More oil and more drilling isn't a solution. At the very least, investing in the research and development of alternative energy solutions is a start. Again, it's not the end to a means. It's just a start. That's a whole lot better than nothing at all to me.

The proposal to use energy sources that don't yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb -- no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, "then a miracle happens," followed by more numbers and characters.

No comment. You dissed both Obama and scientists in the same sentence. Next sentence.

That's the Democrats' plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: "We can't drill our way out of this problem." Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.

You make it sound like that's the only part of the plan. Yes, eventually we'll be able to rely more on alternative energy sources...but we're talking years down the line. Biofuels, solar, and wind power are only part of that. Democrats are right, we can't just drill our way out of this problem because drilling would require five years till we see the results of that drilling. That's five years we don't have. Yeah, we could start it..but we would still need to think about what to do that would have immediate effects.

Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill -- presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don't want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

Because there is much about the oil companies that has many suspicious. Again, I already mentioned something about the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Oil companies are already profitable. And, yes, I do believe that they have reserves that they don't want to tap into. Think about it. If you were an oil company and you remained profitable, would you want to tap into your reserves if you didn't have to? No, you would not. You would hold onto your reserves until such a time as you are unable to get any oil from the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. Think of them as reserved profits.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they'd allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don't. They don't want drilling. They don't want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

Sigh. Now you're just being melodramatic. Next.

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we're fantasizing about "alternative" energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats' lies.

Again, no comment. This is about as hypocritical as it gets. Ann, your total neo-conservative views are blinding you to the fact that not all Democrats are liars any more than all Republicans are liars. And yet time and time again you yourself have lied in the form of misquotes, the misrepresentation of the facts, and a point of view that all Democrats are liars. It's not healthy for the Republican party or for the conservative movement, Ann.

The problem is this: our energy policy sucks! And, quite frankly, I don't care which side solves the problem. All I care about is that someone is actually attempting to get it done. If that means more drilling then do more drilling, but do it in a way that is still environmentally conscience. We do have the technology to drill in a way that is environmentally conscience; why isn't anyone talking about that? If part of the solution requires tapping into the reserves to provide immediate economic relief then, dammit, just do it!

However, I'm still all for alternative energy sources and I think it would be highly foolish to not invest in the further research and development of these sources, proven or not. The solution to our energy problems is not just one solution; it's an animal that is multi-layered. Till you understand that you're never going to get it.

Next time, do your homework, Ann! You really need to get a grip.

P.S.: Read up on the Pickens Plan. Interesting stuff.

Yesterday, I talked about a member of the Free Software Foundation and his 5 reasons to avoid the iPhone. What struck me was that this guy is willing to sacrifice quality for the freedom from proprietary software and corporate ties. That kind of philosophy is all fine and dandy and I would applaud him for his efforts, but when I saw what he claimed was the alternative I couldn't help but laugh. One look at the phone and interface told me everything I needed to know, that this thing was an absolute piece of shit.

Today, I watched a few videos by Dave Fayram off of the Vimeo site where he reviews and shows a comparison of the OpenMoko powered FreeRunner and the iPhone. It's very clear that this phone has absolutely no comparison to the iPhone:

OpenMoko Train Wreck from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

Wow! The keyboard alone has me wondering what the hell the developers were thinking. And the shitty scrolling? Please. Even if I shared the same philosophy as the FSF, an interface like that would be completely unacceptable to me. I wouldn't use it. Period.

Plus, the thing is practically twice as thick as an iPhone. In fact, I think it's even thicker than the Treo 750 I used to use. The thing resembles a f@#king hockey puck for Pete's sake. Talk about a really shitty form factor!

More OpenMoko Train Wrecking (Now with Qt!) from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

My god, is that interface slow!

And it doesn't play MP3's? Really? The most popular audio file format and it doesn't play it. But, hey, it plays Ogg Vorbis files! Awesome! Now I can convert all my existing MP3 and ACC encoded files into Ogg files and waste more time just so my music can sound more shitty. Great idea!

And how many times does he have to tap the same button before it does anything? I mean, really, come on! That by far is one of the biggest blunders of interface design I've ever seen! Instant show stopper in my book.

Text entry is God awful. I've used Treo's, played with Blackberry's, and many, many other types of smart phones and I've never seen text entry as bad as this. What a f@$king joke!

I know what the guy from FSF would respond with to my post. He would say that to buy an iPhone or any other phone that requires proprietary software would go against his philosophy. That's fine. If that's what you believe and you don't want to have anything to do with any phone like that then that's your choice. But to make unfounded claims in an attempt to prove your point is a big mistake. Until you've used these phones and really have taken the time to understand what these phones are really all about then how can you have any sort of educated opinion.

The thing I've learned is that even though I support open source software I know that it's unrealistic to think that all software can be open and free. Hell, it's highly unrealistic to think that you can avoid any proprietary corporate ties in this day in age. Just about everything you use and buy is proprietary in some way or has ties to a corporation. People work to make money. Corporations exist to make money. Regardless of whether you're developing open source or proprietary software the whole point in doing it is to make money in some shape, fashion, or form. Open source software survives not because of its openness but because developers have found way to profit off it and have learned that good product design is a must if you are to compete with companies that develop proprietary software.

Again, I bought an iPhone because I wanted the best phone I could buy that would suit my needs and integrate into my lifestyle well. The iPhone is the best phone for me. Now, whether it's the best phone for someone else, well, that's a matter of personal preference and taste. Apple didn't put a spell on me. I didn't buy one just because of all the hoopla surrounding it. No, I bought it because I feel it's the best smart phone out there. If anyone making open source software for smart phones wants to compete they're going to have to really create something extraordinary, something so well designed that your average layman simply has to have it. That's what Apple did with the iPhone. Sure, marketing and advertising helped, but even then the product speaks for itself. Can OpenMako do the same with the FreeRunner?

To say that a FreeRunner is SO much better just because it's open and supports the philosophy of the FSF, that's a delusional statement at best. I just don't get the willingness to sacrifice useability and good design on a somewhat misguided philosophy. The FreeRunner is so poorly designed in both hardware and software I just don't understand how anyone can look at it and say that it's an acceptable product. Claiming it to be good enough is accepting mediocrity based on a misguided belief over the use of open source software, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. Now, if it is perfectly acceptable to you then buy one and use it. If not, you will have no choice but to consider a proprietary phone. As it stands though I will likely never ever use anything that resembles the FreeRunner simply because it is mediocre. It it was something that actually came close to the iPhone I could see it, but otherwise I'll pass.

Keep your piece of shit open phone. I'm perfectly happy with my proprietary phone, thank you very much.

Last week, someone over at the Free Software Foundation posted a blog entry called 5 reasons to avoid iPhone 3G. I'm all for free software and a big proponent of open source software. Hell, I help develop for MODx, which is open source. Although my Mac is my primary desktop, I have an OpenSuSE desktop server running that I use as my development environment. So, yeah, I understand the open source community quite a bit. So when I read this list of reasons to avoid the iPhone I found it laughable at best because the very reasons they claim are reasons to actually get it.

So, here's my comments about what this guy has to say. Let's start with reason #1:

1: iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones.

Wait a minute...so what about all those free apps on the iTunes App Store? You mean that developers still have to pay Apple to distribute those apps? No sir, they don't! Developers are only taxed on the apps they put price tags on. Even then Apple only gets a 30% cut. Now, you could say that that's a rip off but, let's face it, Apple is in the business of making money. And have you seen the apps on the App Store? Doesn't look like Apple is playing the authority figure you claim it to be. If that was the case then I would estimate that at least two-thirds of the apps on there would have been rejected. As it stands though that is simply not the case. Apple nor anybody else in the iPhone community requires you or any other developer to put a price tag on an iPhone app. If you want to put an iPhone app on the App Store for free you're more than welcome to do so. So your notion that Apple completely blocks free software is bullshit at best.

2: iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.

Apple does NOT endorse and support DRM technology. It's a well known fact that Steve Jobs is not all that fond of DRM systems. But, as you say, it's been a year and half since BMI started allowing Apple to sell DRM free music:

With great hesitation, he allowed a handful of files to go DRM-free on iTunes, but kept in place the requirement that they be purchased using the proprietary, DRM-infected iTunes software. Since then, he has done absolutely nothing to act on those words.

It's not Steve Jobs or Apple that's the problem...it's the big music and media houses that are the problem. Apple has no control over the decision to put DRM on the media they sell because they aren't the ones controlling the publishing rights to the music and media. Only the music and media companies have those rights. If Apple could remove all DRM restrictions on the music and media they sell on iTunes tomorrow they would. Wanna know who you need to complain to? Complain to companies like Sony, BMG, Warner, Universal and others who are doing their best to maintain the status quo and keep the traditional business model of selling media by restricting what you can and can't do with the media you buy. Don't bitch at Apple, bitch at them!

The truth is that there are thousands of software, music, and media creators who want to share their work more freely.

Last I checked, there are tons of independent musicians, such as Jonathan Coulton, sharing and selling their work on iTunes. Same applies to media creators. The notion that Apple only cares about the big labels and doesn't allow independent artist to distribute their work easily on iTunes is bullshit.

I get a lot of my music and media in plenty of different ways. iTunes is just one source. I get stuff from Amazon, podcasts, CDBaby, and other sites. Apple doesn't pigeon-hole you. You do have a choice.

Plus, there are tons of developers offering free software to use on the Mac. It seems for every good paid app there's an equally good free app as well. Not all of them are open source but, still, if it's free how can you complain?

3: iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Have you even used an iPhone? Every app that accesses the GPS API is required to ask you for permission to use your current location. Even then, the coordinates are only used for that given app and aren't transmitted for the world to see. The only way people can see where you are is if you allow for it. Loopt is a good example of this and, even with Loopt, you have to specifically give friends permission to see you before they can do anything. Based on that, if the iPhone is exposing your whereabouts it's because you allowed it to, not because it just does it on its own.

4: iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora.

Ok, so you're partially correct...but only partially. Yes, it's true that no iPhone or iPod will play Ogg Vorbis or Theora files natively. And, yes, it's true that both MP3 and AAC are patented technologies. But, unlike MP3, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. However, to create AAC files does require a license since it is a proprietary format. Interestingly though it isn't owned by a single company since it was developed by multiple organizations in an effort to develop a more standardize file format.

Neither MP3 or AAC are DRM formats in and of themselves. DRM can be added on to these formats, sure, but they're not DRM formats natively. Apple and other companies add on DRM to these formats because they are required to do so by the media companies.

Apple and other organizations would likely embrace open formats like Ogg Vorbis if they truly felt that it would be cheaper and more beneficial than what they are predominantly using now. However, as it stands, that's simply not the case. So what you say is only half right.

5: iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

Yes, the iPhone is not the only option. There are other smart phones out there that have capabilities similar to the iPhone. And, honestly, if there was a phone better than the iPhone I would certainly buy it. Right now though, today, there is no equivalent of the iPhone anywhere.

Fortunately, we will soon be able to have all the convenience of a mobile computer that also makes phone calls without selling our freedom to Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry, or anyone else. The Neo FreeRunner is a promising free-software phone, being developed in cooperation with the same worldwide community responsible for the GNU/Linux operating system.

Great but, really, is that the best the open source community can do? I'll give them credit for coming up with a completely open solution. However, I'm far from being impressed with the design of the FreeRunner. It's not inspiring and the software looks like shit, but that's just my opinion.

About the only phones that could remotely compete with the iPhone are phones powered by Google Android. However, I hate to break it to you but even Google Android is not as open as people thought. Also, exactly how good Google Android powered phones will be remains to be seen. I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet.

iPhones can now also only be activated in stores -- despite the fact that in the U.S., the Register of Copyrights ruled that consumers have the right to unlock their phones and switch to a different carrier.

Yes, you're right, consumers have the right to unlock their phones and use them with other carriers and they are more than welcome to do so if they choose...but at a price. Although customers can reserve the right to unlock their phones, carriers can reserve the right to charge a fee to allow you out of your one or two year contract. Plus, most carriers subsidize the price of the phone so in order to get an iPhone (or any other phone for that matter) that is unlockable without a contract, be prepared to pay a lot more for it. This isn't Apple's doing though. This is the cell phone industry. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, they all do this. If Apple could sell iPhones to every carrier without some bogus stipulations in their contracts they would. That day may come but right now Apple is tied to AT&T for contractual reasons.

I will say this though: If the FreeRunner or a Google Android phone were to beat out the iPhone on design, features, usability, and integration into my lifestyle I will gladly give up my iPhone for any one of these phones. My phone is a part of my everyday life. As an information worker, it's absolutely necessary that I remain in touch with everyone I work with. As such, the iPhone give me that and much more. For any other phone to trump it will be difficult.

Personally, I don't really care if the iPhone is completely open or not. I just care about good, solid product design that integrates into my life well. For now, the iPhone is my smart phone of choice, and not because Apple has tricked me with some David Copperfield illusion either. No sir, it's because Apple created a good product that is well designed. If another phone does it for you then, great, buy it. Otherwise, shut up!

About a week or so ago, Ann Coulter published yet another doozie of a blog post entitled "Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001". Now, you'd think I'd be wise and simply ignore her antics, but to be honest I find it very difficult to ignore this level of ignorance and stupidity. The problem is that there are others who actually believe that what Ann writes about is dead-on correct, that is that her opinion is indeed fact, and that she is telling it like it is. Being that Ann is part of what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe, I find it only fair that I deconstruct what Ann has written and essentially show just how ridiculous her presumptions are. So, let's start at the beginning of her post:

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

You're surprised, Ann? Bush has an approval rating that is less that 30%. Why wouldn't anyone be surprised by that comment? You're the minority, Ann. And this sounds made up.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Congratulations! All that propaganda and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that Bush, Cheney, and others have spread actually worked. You actually believe that just because we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 that we're actually safer? And that we have Bush to thank for that? And that makes him a "great President"? What planet are you living on? Do you realize that some of our civil liberties have been taken from us because of the Bush administration? And you think that's ok because, after all, we're safer and we having had another terrorist attack? Ann, our forefathers would roll over in their grave if they knew that we sacrificed our civil liberties just to protect our borders.

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

Pop quiz, Ann! What's worse? Getting caught getting a blowjob from an intern? Or getting caught lying about the reasons for sending hundreds of thousands of troops to either get killed or seriously injured? And, yes, Bush lied. He said so himself that the intelligence was faulty and went to war with Iraq anyways. Yes, Hussein was a bad guy and eventually had to be dealt with...but there was little or no intelligence linking him directly to al-Qaeda. But the Bush administration continued on, lied to the American public, failed to listen to the United Nations, and went to war anyways even though it had little or nothing to do with the Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. Thus the Iraq was was predicated on a lie. Show me the facts that say otherwise. Clinton got away with lying about a blowjob. Bush got away with lying about a war and getting thousands of Americans killed as a result of it and having some of our civil liberties taken away from us. Yeah, real humanitarian accomplishment, Ann!

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

We didn't invade Iraq to protect America. We invaded Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, a man who had not once invaded or attacked the United States.Yes, he was a bad guy...but he wasn't much of a threat to the U.S...just a threat to the region and to the oil business.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

al-Qaida wasn't a threat in Iraq till after we invaded Iraq. al-Qaida is linked mostly to Sunni's, not the Shia Muslims that have been part of the insurgency the past few years.

And 20,000? Where are you getting these numbers from? What are your sources?

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

Please, say it as often as possible so that others will learn how ignorant you are. It has not and has never been clear as to whether al-Qaida has ever been linked to Saddam Hussein or Iraq. And, like I said above, we invaded Iraq, a country who has not once attacked our country directly. So how is it that we're fighting them over there so what we don't have to fight them here? Who? Being that al-Qaida is all but non existent in Iraq, who in Iraq has even remotely thought about attacking the United States directly? Give me the facts.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a Shiite. Shia's hate al-Qaida. He may be radical...but he definitely has no sympathy for al-Qaida supporters.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

"a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world"? So you're saying that democracy in Iraq is just one step up from a load of shit? That is about as elitist of a statement as it gets. What makes you so much better than the people in Iraq?

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Every single Presidential candidate has used "change" as a part of the message of their campaign for just about every election of the past 20+ years. And that includes Republican candidates as well.

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

But how many were injured? Do you even know? According to GlobalSecurity.org, the number of U.S. casualties have gone down a bit. But the number of U.S. wounded is still fairly high even though the number has gone down in the last few months. The numbers to date though are still staggaring: 4,070 dead with 30,182 wounded. It's the wounded I'm mostly concerned about. Do you have any idea of the issues surrounding the treatment of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq? Do you really believe that they are being treated with the proper level of physical and mental treatment they deserve?

Here's some real numbers that will help put it all in perspective:

3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

So if Al-Qaida is all but non-existent in Iraq and the surge is working, then why don't we have an exit strategy? Why, if we are supposedly successful in Iraq, can we not have a plan to start pulling troops out of Iraq instead of allowing more and more troops to continue third and fourth tours?

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

This isn't fantasy land, Ann. People who attempt terrorism in our country rarely get interviews unless they happen to be born American citizens. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols got interviews. But did the guy who help bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, Ramzi Yousef, get an interview? Umm, doesn't look like it.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

Yeah, yeah...and we'd all be sitting around wondering when Paris Hilton will land her ass in jail for the umpteenth time. People love good tabloids. Who cares.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

If Liberals have a "blind" hatred for Bush, then Conservatives have a "blind" hatred for Liberals. Am I correct?

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Yes, people have lied about Bush. But for every lie there is a fact behind it that proves he has made decisions that resulted in poor judgement, decisions that cost people their jobs, their freedom, and their lives. Not only are there liberals who wish to avoid kissing Bush's ass but there are also conservatives as well who wish to avoid it as well.

You're exaggerating on how well Bush has done. I think his approval rating speaks for itself. You can't get an approval rating like that without even Republicans not approving of him. People aren't in denial over Bush doing a bad job. It's not just their imagination, Ann. And a moral giant? Wow. You must have really low expectations.

Once again, Ann, you fail to back any of your opinions up with the facts. If what you say is true, where are the facts, ma'am? Blind criticism based on unproven facts isn't the best way to "tell it like it is". I can find highly reputable sources that will backup each of my claims. Can you? Best get your facts straight instead of trying to pass off your opinions as fact.

This whole Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, left-wing vs right-wing crap is getting really old, Ann. The fact of the matter is you can't blame everything on Liberals and Democrats. Not every Liberal and/or Democrat is bad anymore than I can say that every Conservative and/or Republican is bad. What you don't realize is that this sort of bi-partisan way of thinking is what is damaging the politics in this nation. All it does is turn people against one another and makes them lose sight of what the real issues are.

Seems that every blog post I've read by you, you're always constantly attacking someone. You've compared Obama's book about his father to Hitler's Mein Kampf, which I feel is by far one of the most outrageous statements from you to date. You constantly try to pass off your opinions as fact and have a highly slated view of the fact. Plus, you tend to take things completely out of context. It's as if you pick apart everything and only leave in the parts that illustrate and justify your point of view.

I'm all about the freedom of expression and sharing one's opinion with others. You have every right to blog about whatever you wish to blog about. But even I get things wrong and I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong when I don't get the facts straight. Why can't you, Ann?

Last I checked we're all Americans. Maybe if you spent more time treating all Americans with a little decency and respect, rather than attacking any opposing viewpoints at the first chance you get, you might get more out of it. Spreading lies and hate is no way to improve the political situation in our country.

What is it with people who insist on wearing a Bluetooth headset on the side of their head even when they aren't talking to anyone? It's a headset; not an earring! These people might as well wear a sign that says "I'm more important than you!".

I mentioned in my last post about a message from the Australian PM. Here's yet another piece of propaganda bullshit that arrived in my inbox:

Subject: What a Guy.......We need a guy like that!

THE AUSSIES HAVE ALWAYS STOOD BY US IN THICK AND THIN....WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH THEY GET GOING...WHAT A GREAT LEADER...HOPE WE FIND A GUY LIKE HIM .....

This is the kind of president we need!!!

AMERICA Needs A Leader Like This!?

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask, is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

As "cool" as this may sound and though we'd all like to cheer this guy on and say "way to go", the problem with it is this: John Howard never said any of that:

The only part that's true is the statement that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law may not want to live in Australia. What you see in this e-mail is actualla re-working of an editorial written in the days after September 11, 2001, by Barry Loudermilk:

This is right on up there with the falsified Barack Obama quote I got recently. And all it took was a simple search on Google to find the facts.

This is just trash politics through and through. Spreading lies isn't a good way to convince people, especially when you misquote or lie about what someone else said...it's just stupid.

Earlier this morning, the following message lands in my inbox:

Don't understand the big deal over deporting illegal aliens. It certainly was no problem for the past presidents HOOVER AND EISENHOWER.

Back during the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called "Operation Wetback" so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they can sure do it today!! If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder. Don't forget to pay your taxes, 50 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

Ok, there are some problems with this way of thinking. Re-implementing a program like "Operation Wetback" wouldn't work today for a number of reasons. First, "Wetback" is a derogatory term and using it would cause all kinds of chaos. Not a wise choice in terms. Second, although we'd all like to simply kick them back over the border and say "Not my problem" it doesn't solve the bigger problem. Let's look at the second reason a bit more.

Everyone talks about how illegal aliens are hurting our economy but no one thinks about why it is that they are over here in the first place. The reason? The Mexican economy is so bad that illegal aliens from Mexico come over here to make more money. The level of poverty and corruption is pretty damn bad. I can not blame anyone who tries to make a better life for themselves and their family. Can you?

To say to these people, "Get out! You're not welcome here!" That's an elitist attitude. What makes you or I any better than someone simply trying to make due? That ignores the very problem that is causing immigration problems to run rampant and it's irresponsible. Why don't you hear about problems with illegal Canadians? Cause, unlike Mexico, Canada actually has a pretty good economy. There is no motivation for Canadians to come into the United States illegally.

Look, this country was founded and created by rejecting the Old World and creating a New World. Problem now is that we're no longer the New World. An even newer world is being created. We're talking about globalization here. Another problem is that more than 80 percent of our economy is domestic. We react in horror to any Americans who speak a second language - God forbid, Spanish - as if the big problem is that we have too many people speaking foreign languages. Hell, as it stands we don't really have a whole lot of foreign travel by Americans. As such, we have a whole bunch of people who don't realize that things have changed in the world.

U.S. businesses get it though. They're outsourcing like crazy in an effort to remain competitive in a world economy. American universities get it too. They're bringing in students from all parts of the world. Research is being done everywhere as well. The people who really don't get is is the people you've elected in Washington, D.C. We would rather rely on intelligence reports (which God knows are 100% accurate) to tell us what we need to know rather than simply talking with the countries we know little about. That kind of foreign policy does little to promote openness in a world economy.

What we have to do is talk to the Mexican government and see what we can do to help boost their economy. If you help them make their economy more strong and give Mexicans the opportunity at obtaining good jobs then you'll see a great reduction in illegal immigration. But what you can't do is say "Mexico is not our problem". Every country that borders us is our problem. The relationship we have with Canada and Mexico is extremely important. The better we're able to help each other build our economies the stronger we'll be in the world economy.

As far as the immigrants that are here, I don't see how we can realistically deport all of them. What we're doing now is not pro-active and is not a healthy attitude for America. Perhaps we can look at encouraging those who are illegal to become legal. Help them understand what it is to be an American. Encourage them to learn English. If we don't then they'll continue to hide in the shadows.

Best way I can think of to give you a taste of what I'm talking about is to have you watch an episode of 30 Days that deals with immigration. Morgan Spurlock created the series and many of the episodes are pretty darn interesting. The one on immigration though was a real eye opener. In it, Morgan took a guy who was a Minuteman and has him spend a month with a Los Angeles Mexican family in a one-bedroom apartment. He ends up going to Mexico to see where this family originated from. What he sees shocks him.

If you can rent it and watch it, do it. Blockbuster should have it available to rent. It's from Season 2, episode 2 I think. It's also coming up as a rerun on FX as well. If you have a DVR, do a search and set it to record.

This is a hot button topic that unfortunately does not have a simple solution. The problem is much bigger and much different than you think. And in order to solve this we have to get past the kind of rhetoric and B.S. that is inherent in the kind of correspondence that was in that e-mail about the Australian PM. We have to look at the facts and not pre-judge. Otherwise we run the risk of making rash decisions on the basis of a gut-reaction rather than making educated decisions based on facts.

Go rent and watch this DVD:

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers

The amount of corruption and profiteering from the likes of Blackwater, Halliburton/KBR, CACI, and Titan is staggering! And the creators of this film are not lying about it either. Plenty of evidence and facts to backup their claims.

After watching the film, I feel that our occupation in Iraq has less to do with fighting terrorism and more to do with oil and government contracts. Do the math. The more troops we have in Iraq the more money these companies will make. The so-called "surge" in Iraq is nothing more than a "surge" in profits. For the past five years we let the Bush administration and our government line the pockets of corporate executives by privatizing so much of our military operations. All the while we were told that we were fighting a "noble cause" and that if we didn't then the "terrorists would win".

Some of these companies received these contracts without any opposition, any bidding, with no competition, and continues to be granted these contracts with little or no oversight. It should come as no surprise that Halliburton, the very company that Vice President Cheney was CEO of, got the majority of these contracts. As a member of the military serving in Iraq you can't shit, shower, or shave without some form of intervention from Halliburton. What's worse is that nothing has been done in Congress; no amendments or bills have been passed to ensure that these companies have proper oversight.

The United States government is being charged outrageous amounts of money with millions of dollars in overspending. This is your tax dollars at work, folks. If this doesn't piss you off then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm outraged beyond belief. I figured there was some corruption for sure...but this? Hell no! What they are doing is so un-patriotic, un-American, and un-Christian. It's an absolute outrage! And we're to believe that we're actually fighting terrorism? The hell we are! It's a lie, plain and simple. These people are profiting off of terrorism and the deaths of others. And it's wrong...so damn wrong. So wrong that its about as bad as terrorism itself.

This needs to change. We need to stop the war profiteering. And you can change it by voting for someone who won't put up with it any longer. McCain sure as hell won't do it. I have serious doubts that Clinton will do anything constructive after her recent comments about Iran. So that only leaves one candidate left.

Guess who.

UPDATE: You can watch the entire film online at Freedocumentaries.org.

Seriously, how much proof do you need? Not only does Hillary Clinton lie, it looks like she's even hiring others to lie for her by pushing them onto others via poll calls. Say "hello" to Hillary's new head of her campaign team, the firm of Geoff Garin:

Clinton Camp Testing Attacks on Obama

This is absurd! How can anyone in their right mind vote for her knowing damn well that she has lied her ass off to get their vote? I don't buy the excuse that we expect politicians to bullshit us. I'm tired of that line. If this is her idea of a well run campaign, I don't want her anywhere near the office of the President of the United States!

Recently, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer described Vista as "a work in progress" at an annual Seattle event (InfoWorld, Ars Technica). I don't know about you, but I find that statement quite disturbing. Let's take a look at what Ballmer said and see if we can translate it a bit:

"Windows Vista: A work in progress." [Laughter, applause.] "A very important piece of work, and I think we did a lot of things right, and I think we have a lot of things we need to learn from. Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases. Can we just sort of kiss that stone and move on? Because it turns out many things become problematic when you have those long release cycles. The design point, what you should be targeting. We can't ever let that happen again."

Translation: Windows Vista: A failure in progress. A very important piece of works because, let's face it, we never get things right the second time or fourth time. Why would the sixth time be any different? Actually it's six years between releases, but who's counting? Kiss my ass if you don't like it. I know it took a long time but, you know, it's hard to design this stuff. We can't ever let anyone know that we don't know how to design anything other than shit.

"Vista is bigger than XP, and it's gonna stay bigger than XP. We have to make sure it doesn't get bigger still."

Translation: You upgraded and went from fat to obese. We know that. But diet and exercise won't make it any smaller.

"So the desktop business, it's our heart, it's our soul, we continue to drive forward from this foundation."

Translation: We know we can't keep this up. So, we're gonna try and buy up companies that aren't a good fit for our core business, share a different philosophy, and does nothing but hurt the consumer. Three cheers for Microhoo! Woo-hoo!

Regarding the search market...

"There's an opportunity to knock the socks off in terms of innovation."

Translation: There's an opportunity to kiss our competitors good-bye and innovate by stealing from them. Cause, you know, that's just business.

"It's virtualization time for Microsoft...We're gonna make sure we democratize virtualization."

Translation: We may be late as hell in the game but we're gonna do for virtualization what Hillary Clinton has done for the Democratic party. We'll lie, cheat, and steal our way to the top!

Imagine if you bought a brand new car, took it home, and within the first few weeks you noticed problems and annoyances. You filled it up with gas twice already after only driving a couple of hundred miles. Two of the tires have slow leaks. A weird burning oil smell keeps coming out of the A/C when you turn it on. The engine light keeps flashing at you telling you that your engine requires attention. The radio doesn't play any CD's except those distributed by Sony.

Now, imagine you took this car back to the dealership and was told that your car was a "work in progress" and wasn't actually fully tested nor completed when it rolled off the assembly line. Would this be an acceptable answer for you? Would you put up with it? Didn't think so.