WikiLeaks and the Same Old-Same Old of War - David Loftus

I am going to offer you a commentary out of determined ignorance. If we are to be honest, this probably happens -- here and in the “legitimate” broadcast and print media, never mind the Internet -- more often than we are inclined to believe.

Concerning the release, last weekend, of about 92,000 U.S. military documents about the war in Afghanistan on WikiLeaks.org, I don’t believe I need to read the docs or news reports. Only a brief exposure to the stories, editorials, and letters to the editor has suggested to me there are likely no surprises here.

From the start, I opposed going to war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. The reasons offered by our leaders were murky and suspect, whether they had to do with implicating these nations in the 9/11 attacks or Saddam’s supposed possession of nuclear weapons. President Bush and his team of Vietnam War-avoiding warmongers had lied to the country before, and the odds were high they were not giving us the whole truth this time around, either.

But this hardly distinguishes them from previous administrations. If you wade through American history, you’ll find almost every war has been initiated with half-truths and absolute falsehoods; that U.S. leaders took their citizens into battle with incomplete information (at best) or utter lies, and that between hundreds and tens of thousands of idealistic, innocent youths from the rural hinterlands and poor urban centers (led by a handful of the best and brightest) went to their deaths in Mexico, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf war for reasons that probably had less to do with freedom and liberty than power, greed, and long-range corporate strategies.

A family friend named Harold Bock, who was a schoolteacher in Coos Bay and Myrtle Creek, Oregon from the 1970s to the 1990s, told me stories about his conscientious objector status (the same as Oregon poet William Stafford) during World War II. In his teens, Harold had been gung-ho to enlist in the army, but an uncle who had served in World War I took him aside and told him about his discovery, on the battlefield, that the weapons and ammunition used by the Germans were made by the same companies that were making his own gear. That was a frightening lesson for his uncle.

A copyeditor for the Boston Globe by the name of Victor Lewis once told me about serving guard duty in Vietnam and reading a copy of Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (however that got into his hands!), and suddenly getting the creeping suspicion that he was involved not in a war between us and them, but “them and them.” In frightened disgust, he threw the book out of the bunker.

Recall also the half-century it took to learn that a subsidiary of IBM provided the Nazis with the punch-card technology that helped them to organize their mass herd of victims -- to facilitate the genocide against Jews and other European minorities. There are easy profits to be made in every war, and you can depend on the amorality of private companies to find them. I imagine it will take decades to discover everything Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel, and probably dozens of other corporations have made on the backs of American and Muslim corpses on an uncertain and likely unsuccessful mission.

Critics of WikiLeaks have decried the release of the names of U.S informants among the Afghans and Pakistanis, who will likely be killed by the Taliban. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded that alarm on Thursday. That may well happen, but is it worse, in the end, than the thousands of participants and noncombatants who have died on both sides because the U.S. went in on an impossible mission in the first place? The criticism seems as useful and germane as focusing on the arrangement of chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

I would like to suggest that, instead of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (which have to date cost us 1,209 American soldiers lives and $286 billion, and 4,413 soldiers and $736 billion, respectively) in the first place, we should have engaged in trade, and simply handed over humanitarian aid -- food and medical supplies. But, you might object, that would be helping our enemies! The truth is, we helped them anyway -- with military aid to the Taliban in the 1980s when they were fighting the Russians, and military aid to Saddam in the 1980s when he was at war with Iran -- in ways that did the average citizens no damn good.

Of course Saddam and the Taliban would have siphoned off as much of that aid as they possibly could, but the average citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq would have benefited anyhow, even if by no more than not getting killed in a crossfire between U.S. soldiers and militant Muslims. Everyone would have formed a nicer image of the United States than they have today. Sooner or later, the locals would have questioned the wisdom and morality of their government on their own. Instead of manufacturing goodwill toward us and doubt toward their leaders with humanitarian aid, we chose to create stacks of dead bodies and more live enemies by coming across as heavily armed imperialist bullies. Is that a desirable American legacy? There may indeed be situations where war is the only answer, but I remain unconvinced that this instance -- or most of the others throughout history -- was one.

No question it would have been much less costly for us to have proceeded peacefully. These needless, wasteful wars have contributed mightily to the economic recession that is hurting us so badly at home. Above all, families who have lost their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers to these wars will have years to contemplate how little their ultimate sacrifice has accomplished, in making either Afghanistan and Iraq, or the rest of the world, a better place than it was before.

You may consider that pain the true and most lasting legacy of Reagan, the Bushes, and their wars.

How Can They Hack You? Let Me Count the Ways. . . - Nikki Lorenzini

Recently, a researcher was able to pull up information for 170 million Facebook users. Ron Bowes, who compiled the information, was quoted as saying: “I realized that this is a scary privacy issue, I can find the name of pretty much every person on Facebook.” He was able to pull the names and Web addresses of people’s profiles that were not listed as “private.” From what I have read, people are pretty upset, seeming that their privacy is now being invaded.

My opinion: Your privacy is fine! Yes, people have a right to feel threatened when they think their personal space has been invaded. When it comes to sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., though, people willingly put their lives out there. I always saw these sites as a place to reconnect with people from high school/grade school, post pictures for family I cannot see regularly, write silly status updates, etc. However, I choose to play it smart when it comes to the Internet. I keep the personal information I post limited. I only have my email address and the city I live. In fact, I think I actually have my email on private as well.  I refuse to put any of my phone numbers or my address. I do not vent about work or other people on my Facebook. If I do not want my mom to see or read it, it’s not going up. It’s not worth risking my job or reputation or privacy to put things that might be questionable or cause for fears about getting into the wrong hands.

Sure, Bowes was able to get people’s names and pictures. However, we store so much more information out there that we should actually fear people getting a hold of. How many of us do online banking? How many of do online shopping? How easy is it to whip out a credit card and pay for something on EBay or Amazon and keep the card number stored? I am sure people are able to hack into those companies’ systems. I know people’s Facebook and MySpace accounts have been hacked, and I’ve heard stories of credit card numbers being stolen from stores.

So how easy do you think it would be for the two groups to join forces and hack into one of those systems? If that happens, I believe there is a legitimate reason to fear for Internet privacy. Until then, please be smart when you are putting your life on the Internet line.

In Defense of Desired Music - David Loftus

In his autobiography, My Last Sigh, the late Spanish film director Luis Buñuel described his ideal bar. One detail that stuck with me was “no music.” Is there such a thing as a lounge or tavern, anywhere, that does not have music, live or canned, going almost constantly?

Why do restaurants, retail stores, cafés, and shopping malls invariably have piped-in music? Is it supposed to foster a “pleasant ambiance”? Or is it intended to force patrons to talk over it so the place sounds even busier, more lively, than it actually is?

Not so long ago -- perhaps about four or five generations -- the only sounds you heard were made by live people nearby: live musicians, live speakers, live machines. Today, Americans have grown up with our daily routines encased in music -- canned tunes vibrating in the air of public spaces, and the perpetual gabble and croon of the television at home. Most of us seem content to treat such organized sound as a kind of aural wallpaper. We tune it out.

At least other people seem to. I can’t. Organized sounds command my attention. My father was a musician who made music all the time, and insisted his family do the same. When I was a baby, my parents laid me on a blanket beneath my father’s grand piano when he practiced. I started piano lessons with him when I was about 5, took some basic percussion a few years later, and was forced to learn the violin at age 10. Later, I gave French horn, clarinet, and mandolin a try. My family also sang together -- at the dinner table, and in the car on long drives.

So my attitude on the subject may be a little retro. Music should not be wallpaper. It is important enough to be listened to attentively or it should not be present at all. It’s a personal thing: I have no objection to car stereos or iPods, but at least play them at a level and under such conditions that no one else is forced to hear what you’ve chosen for yourself. Above all, music should not be a soundtrack for shopping or public eating.

Music seeks attention; it welcomes it. Learning to tune it out, or to employ it as a sort of subconscious defense from the dread experience of letting one’s mind wander where it will -- of actually hearing oneself think -- is as bad as teaching oneself not to hear the chatter of one’s children. But of course that’s not what corporate America teaches us; as far as it is concerned, music does a fine job as commodity and sales assistant.

Don’t accept the regime. If you don’t make music of your own, at least pay it the respect it deserves. 

Austin Lee: Shirley Sherrod and Imus

Until last week I had never heard of Shirley Sherrod. Apparently she was a government worker charged with helping struggling farmers here in the State of Georgia. The entire situation surrounding Sherrod is a statement she made during an NAACP event earlier this year.

In this speech she talked about how she was confronted with having to help a white farmer that (by her description) was acting a little snooty toward her because she was black. She recounted "I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough…” (This was met by at least one person's whole hearted agreement with that action toward a white farmer.)

Now, the part of her speech where she said this was wrapped on either side by a very good description of how she used to act this way, but realized that it isn't about black and white: It's about poor people. (I agree with her 100% on this point.) In the end she returned to that white farmer and helped to save his farm.

The part of the whole deal that I find crazy is that Andrew Breitbart pulled only the damaging clips to portray her as a racist and the NAACP (after condemning her) only touted her revelation that her actions were wrong.

The truth of the matter is that she did act in a racially motivated way toward this white farmer and his family. Regardless of her subsequent actions she did violate the non-discrimination policy of the State of Georgia and the United States of America.

Here is my question: Why can she be let off the hook and Don Imus can't? Imus made a racially charged statement on his radio program and later apologized. He has walked the straight and narrow ever since. On more than one occasion he has reiterated his remorse for those statements.

I haven't heard the NAACP or other organizations demanding he be reinstated to his position since he has changed his ways. Yet, Shirley Sherrod, who admitted that she acted in a racially motivated way is being offered a new job.

I just don't get it. I don't think she should have been fired, I think Andrew Breitbart acted very unethically, and I think the NAACP, USDA, The Obama Administration and FoxNews did a HORRIBLE job reviewing all of the evidence before giving her the boot.

BUT - The fact remains: Shirley Sherrod and Don Imus are both guilty of the same offense. Only one of them is now a martyr. That is sad.

Could We Have a Little Decorum, Please? - Nikki Lorenzini

How rude! Where have all our manners gone?

A simple thank-you when you receive something, a “bless you” when you sneeze, holding the door open for the people who are behind you. Seem like simple and easy things to do, right? So often people just let the door slam in my face when I am right behind them. Sure, I am short, but does being 5'1" make me invisible? I see people in the hallway at work, and I am lucky if I am able to get them to mutter a “hi.” I send text messages with no response to acknowledge someone received it, e-mails that go ignored, and people do not respond when I ask “Do you have anything to go downstairs?”

Granted, there are times when I live in total oblivion and come across as rude, myself. There have been times when I was in my own little world and I didn’t notice anyone behind me and I let the door shut on someone. I am now noticing more people who seem to throw their manners out the window. It seems rare that I receive thank-you cards, e-mails, or even a simple “thank you.” I couldn’t honestly tell you when the last time I wrote someone a thank-you note for a gift. Sure, I did when I had co-workers change my tire for me on New Year’s Eve, but is the thank-you note (even if it’s in e-mail form) going out of style? Or am I just being too old-fashioned and afraid of coming off as ungrateful?

What about holding doors open for people. Is it so uncool to be polite to a stranger anymore? I find myself horrified when I notice that I let the door slam in someone’s face by accident. Holding the door open might not seem like a big deal until you have your hands full and might not be able to grab it on your own … or if you are helping someone who needs assistance walking and could use an extra hand to keep the door open. Many a time I seen women with a child in a stroller have to struggle to open doors until I can run over and help them. I used to see this when I worked at a supermarket. I always made a point to at least ask women who had kids or the elderly if they needed help out to their cars.

I heard of someone the other day who sneezed in his hands, did not wash them or use hand sanitizer afterward, then went for a plate of cookies. Okay, I get that people get colds, get sick, sneeze and cough. However, I do not get the people who decide not to wash their hands to halt their germs from spreading. Also, not washing your hands after using the bathroom? There are enough reasons to get creeped out by bodily fluids -- why add this on top of it? I don’t expect people to go OCD about germs and being clean, but I would like to know that people are doing the basics to at least keep themselves germ-free.

There are so many little things I get irritated by when people seem not hold up their end with good manners. I am not sure if I am being too old-fashioned, but is it too much to ask to have someone respond “hi” when they make eye contact with you and you say “hi”? I am sure the whole manners thing is changing with all this new technology. I have it automatically embedded in my head to reply to my manager’s e-mails at work when things get done. Oh, but the annoyance of when I do not get one back from someone else when I need help and it’s been done. How about when I send a text message saying I am going to call someone later, and I don’t receive a text back saying ok, I go into overload mode and resend the text about 3 times just as in case they didn’t get the first 3.

So, are our manners going the way of the dinosaurs and not being replaced by anything, or am I just being too old-fashioned?

Washington Post: Top Secret America - Austin Lee

Today the Washington Post (obviously still trying to duplicate its "Watergate" success) released an investigative report entitled "Top Secret America". It should come as no surprise that the liberals in charge over at the Washington Post are not a fan of the CIA or any other agency that requires secrets to do its job. Liberals are not a fan of secrets (unless you serve a liberal a subpoena. Then their Civil Rights are being violated.)

There are problems with their so called journalism from the very first sub heading: "A hidden world, growing beyond control". This sub heading insinuates that it is wrong for our country to have people willing to hide their lives from everyone to protect our country and that its growth should be controlled. The reality is that we need to be able to grow these organizations when and how they need to be grown: Away from the political dealings of congress.

To paraphrase Mitch Rapp from Vince Flynn's novels: I don't want someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Washington, D.C. telling me how to do my job when I am the one in the desert trying to keep our country free.

The "journalists" make broad sweeping statements that are simply ludicrous when paired with any type of common sense. Take this quote for example: "After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that they system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine."

What about the fact that no one has died in the United States due to a terrorist attack since all of these organizations were started? Doesn't that speak directly to the effectiveness of the organizations whose purpose was to prevent more attacks like 9/11?

Or: "An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret clearances." Well, I certainly hope so! I hope we have people all over the world entrusted with out secrets that are using them for good. (Special note: Not even all congressmen and senators are given Top-Secret clearance.) If it takes 854,000 people to keep us safe...so be it.

The requirements for top-secret clearance include background checks; personal interviews with relatives, friends, co-workers, etc.; fingerprints; polygraph test; credit check; education; affiliations; local agencies; where an individual has worked and lived; and spouse and any immediate family members who are US citizens other than by birth or who are not US citizens.

So, I am okay with that many people having security clearance.

(Special note: This is all from just the first page of their report...now let's continue)

Another gem: "Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste."

Okay, let's stop right there. Why can't they go into the Social Security Administration or Medicare/Medicaid to highlight redundancy and waste? What about welfare or the Department of Energy? (By the way, the Department of Energy was created to reduce our dependency on foreign oil back in the 1970's. Last time I checked our dependence on foreign oil was still increasing. Talk about an organization that isn't effective.)

The reason they aren't investigating these organizations is because these are Liberal creations. These organizations are full of waste and redundancy, but the Washington Post chooses to go after the organizations that don't fit with their political leanings.

Okay, back to the article...where were we? Oh yeah: "Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks."

So? How does that prove redundancy? Plain and simple it doesn't. All it says is that we have "51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities" that "track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks." They didn't tell us that 2 of them do the same thing or that any of them duplicated anything! They just told us how many organizations there are and how many cities they operate in.

What if we have 3 offices concentrating on Indonesian groups, 10 on Middle Eastern Groups, 5 on South American Groups, and on and on. What a bunch of hacks.

I'll spare you the rest. Suffice it to say that the rest of the article is full of anti-military and anti-CIA rhetoric disguised as journalism. When the Washington Post decides that it will use its influence to investigate waste and abuse at government agencies that aren't trying to save our lives...I might start paying attention.

Just last week the Ombudsman at the Washington Post spoke out about the Post's non-reporting on the Black Panther Voter Intimidation scandal in the Obama Justice Department. (I just choked as I tried to say Obama and Justice in the same sentence.)

I am proud that the United States of America has spies, military men and women, the FBI, CIA, and counter-terrorism agencies. I sleep better at night knowing that congress doesn't know what many of the agencies are doing to protect our country, and knowing that they are free to operate without political interference.

The View From the Sidewalk - David Loftus

One of the things that keeps life worthwhile -- interesting, instructive, and fun -- is regularly changing your perspective . . . also known as getting out of a rut, seeing with new eyes, or just being in the moment.

It isn’t that hard to do if you put your mind to it. The world constantly presents us with new information, a different point of view, but only if we aren’t shut down inside our cocoon of a house and vehicle, plugged into an iPod, talking to the same people and playing over-designed video games on the computer, shouting “look at me!” while simultaneously pushing people away with a boom box or car stereo turned up full blast.

It can be as simple as walking down the street -- something a lot of people simply do not bother to do as often as they might. Even when they do, they keep their ear plastered to canned music or a cellular phone so they might just as well be somewhere else.

If you are used to seeing the city, even just your own immediate neighborhood, from the behind a windshield, it’s amazing how startling a simple thing like walking against the traffic on a one-way street can be. You’ll see an angle of the city you may never have seen before -- if you look up and take it in. One of the things I like to study when I’m outdoors are the shadows of things disappearing or already gone, such as an old faded piece of advertising on a brick wall or the outline of a demolished building as its remnants appear on the neighboring structure it used to be smack up against.

If you live with a dog that must regularly be walked, your pet will force you to see things you wouldn’t ordinarily notice, like the behavior of squirrels (VERY interesting to most dogs!) or the mere fact that a raccoon is tooling around your downtown area. Twice, I’ve seen a hummingbird in operation in the South Park Blocks of Portland, fairly early in the morning when I had to walk my toy fox terrier. I might not ever have noticed them if I had been striding to work, reading a book, or otherwise inside my head while tooling down the sidewalk.

Suburban neighborhoods, where I’ve occasionally had to travel by bus to get to play auditions, rehearsals, or short-term work as a standardized patient for a chiropractic college, are often dominated by automobile culture: sometimes they have no sidewalks at all, and I have to walk on the street or road with an eye out for the occasional vehicle, or on a sloped or muddy shoulder. I rarely see other people on foot in those areas, save for the occasional jogger or dog walker.

Another instructive sight available primarily to pedestrians is the appearance of the drivers in passing cars. You can get a two- to three-second glance at passing motorists, which is cut to half or less if you are driving in the opposite direction. It can be sobering to note how many tight, frustrated, angry, and discouraged faces pass you at the wheel of their vehicles. (Not to mention -- in a state which has outlawed the use of a cell phone while driving -- how many are yakking away on a mobile; I typically count between 1 in 10 and 1 in 4 who are doing that.)

Changing one’s perspective is not just seeing things differently; it’s making an effort to be different, too. The past two weeks I have not been working in an office because I have rehearsals for a children’s theater production of “Aladdin” from 10 to 2 (I’m playing the Genies) and performances of a grown-up production of “The King and I” four evenings and/or afternoons of the week.

So for at least half the week I’ve spent upwards of 12 hours at a suburban theater space either rehearsing, taking a break to rest, read, and write, or doing the makeup, costume, and declaiming bit. This means I have to take a city bus out to the theater in the morning and don’t get back home until nearly midnight, but it also means I don’t have to wear a nice shirt and necktie to “work.” So I’ve dug into my colorful and crazy wardrobe, including shirts and outfits I’ve collected over the years from Japan, Eastern Europe, and Africa.

Thursday morning I got off the bus and walked the few blocks to the theater in a smock-and-pantaloon suit from The Gambia that is striking for its diamond-shaped tie-dyed orange bull’s-eye on the chest, in a field of deep indigo. Passing motorists in Buicks, Cadillacs, and various types of SUV stared at me with expressions of puzzlement, bemusement, or what seemed to be just plain disapproval. Evidently they thought I was a weirdo.

If they were happy with their own lives with their houses and salaries and big cars, why couldn’t they spare a smile for the goofy person walking along the road? Why, I thought as I looked back at them, have you worked so hard to be just like everyone else, only more so?

You Say You Want An Evolution? - Ryan John

Start an evolution.

Imagine a company that is able to sell all the material you’ve ever put in e-mail or Google, blogged or commented in response to someone else’s blog, posted on MySpace, Facebook, dating sites, or special interest groups, weird chat forums, or whatever Internet site you frequent. Imagine that one or more companies owned the rights to all that information for nearly everyone in the country. Let’s say that for a fee, they might sell it to anyone interested in viewing all that content, for whatever reason. Would there be a market if a company could do so? Probably. Needless to say, we’d be totally exposed and things we thought were personal would suddenly be available to anyone willing to pay to see them.

How would this come about, you ask? If cyberspace threats continue to mount, the government will eventually control all Internet content by way of security intervention. Already, the National Security Agency is investing $100 million in a program called “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies that run such critical infrastructure. It makes sense to start with the energy and utility companies that control our infrastructure, but it will eventually lead to an increasing number of private companies relinquishing control, all in the name of patriotism and national security. If there is one thing that both sides can agree on, it’s that the government should control national security. Soon the government will encourage companies to encourage their access, ultimately leading to almost universal government control in the public and private sectors.

There are theorists who believe we are advancing in technology to create one giant brain-like, super-organism amongst all human beings webbed through the Internet. It is, after all, a “world-wide web.” Although individuals may have a hard time recognizing this hyper-interconnectivity as it’s happening, someone from the outside -- say, outer space -- can certainly perceive the evidence if our connectivity is observed on a macro level. Perhaps it’s the intelligent next phase of the evolutionary process.

There is a strong argument to be made that Internet activity encourages a short attention span, which could arguably lead loss of concentration, which is ultimately bad for the individual. I would say that’s probably true. However, the Internet undoubtedly collects and connects group thought which is ultimately good for the birth and sustainability of group consciousness. Sure, the average visit for two hundred people a week to americancurrents.com might be less than a minute, but we represent a minute fragment of the technological consciousness, considering all that is out there. Perhaps through the cognitive convergence in technology, we’re creating an environment where honest communication amongst humans is almost forced. Joe Rogan is the guy who introduced me to this concept, and I’m finding that it is shared by others, including Kevin Kelly, who wrote the book What Technology Wants. Both predict a very slow, yet inevitable collective dependence.

So beware of what we’re doing out there.  I know we’re mostly all pretty normal, but how comfortable would we be if all our technological communication were made public for anyone to read? If you say pretty comfortable, you’re leading the evolution.

A company that could make it all known, however, will probably get those who are currently lagging behind, up to speed.

Great Game! ... But Where Are the Dead Pelican Cards? - Nikki Lorenzini

BP came out with a board game back in the 1970s. It was called the BP Offshore Oil Strike. Four players search for oil while building platforms and constructing pipelines. The object of the game is to be the first to make $120 million. There are hazards in the game as well: players may suffer a large-scale oil spill and have to cover the clean-up costs. Hazard cards say things like: "Blow-out! Rig damaged. Oil slick cleanup costs. Pay $1 million."

Does this sound familiar?

The game has eerie similarities to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico right now. While it's tempting to think this is just an ironic twist of fate, it seems odd that an oil company would produce an oil version of Monopoly. The game came out during the oil crisis of the 1970s, so maybe it was a way of drumming up support for more US-based drilling? Or was it just another kooky marketing ploy? I know Hess has their trucks that they sell every year at Christmas, but who the heck at BP thought of putting out their own version of Monopoly?

Why would anyone at BP think this was a good idea in the first place? While I'm sure BP knew a spill like this could possibly happen, I don't think if they really believed it was likely they would have forecast it with a board game like this. On the other hand, there certainly have been other examples: according to the BBC, more than 7,000 spills (large and small) have occurred in the Niger Delta between 1970 and 2000.

Whether you're inclined to put together conspiracies or not, you have to admit it's a pretty strange thing when a game turns into reality.

A Good Man Is Hard To Find ... Online - Nikki Lorenzini

As I write this, I have my Plentyoffish.com account up. Yes, I hang my head in shame: I am using Plenty of Fish. I check it just about every other day -- that’s if I remember to check it. Recently, no one has written to me. Sure, when I first opened it back in November, I had a few takers. One I texted back and forth for a few days, the other one I chatted on Aim for a few weeks, with nothing lasting beyond that. I know of people who were able to get dates like crazy, and called this website a glorified booty call.

When I signed up, it was a spur-of-the-moment thing. It was before Thanksgiving, I was hanging out with one of my friends, and lo and behold, I had an account. I always said I would never have an account with any dating website. I laughed at people who signed up on them. I rationalized my account, though: I will do this as a trial run; if I get enough action on this but no real takers, then I actually might pay for Eharmony or the like.

As time went on, I got the typical “You’re like a goddess who fell from heaven” messages (this was actually a line from one of them). I also got the typical nothing past a “Hi, how are you,” or a message so grammatically incorrect, I couldn’t read it. I sent my fair share of messages to guys I thought seemed decent enough, but only one guy responded.

I found a co-worker, an ex, someone I used to attend church with, someone from high school, and one of my friends all on the site. It almost seemed like the Facebook of the dating world.

So far, my trial has been a bust.

I changed my profile a few times, and I’ve been trying to keep it short. I state the stuff I like, which includes but is not limited to knitting, sewing, and Phillies games. I give a somewhat general idea of the music I like (stating that: The Beatles are my favorite, and I once saw Yanni in concert. I’m not a big fan of rap or country.). But maybe this is the clincher which is keeping the guys away: I state what I would like in a guy.

Okay, seems harsh to say, right? This is what is stated: Some good Christian guy, who also believes that chivalry is not dead. I would also like a guy who is involved with their church and ministry and also plays guitar. Is it really a turn-off to know what type of guy I would want? I'm not picky as to looks or material things.

Do I hear you groaning in embarrassment for me? I mean, I am actively involved in my church, helping with several different ministries there, and I travel about 35 minutes each way to get there (even though there are churches within a 5-minute radius of where I live). Is it a problem to be that picky as to a guy that I would want? Or should I not put it out there like that?

All in all, I am not overly worried about my dating life at the moment. Being 27 and single does have its down sides. That’s why I make an effort to keep busy with friends and family and my church. As for the online dating, I think I need to find another pond.

You can call me "john" - Ryan John

I don’t usually believe women who accuse prominent male figures of sexual harassment. I tend to think it’s an exploited tactic, aimed at gaining the coveted 15 minutes, or an even more sought-out generous, out-of-court settlement. But after I heard the recorded interview, I believe the Portland, Oregon hotel massage therapist who goes by the name Miss Hagerty. The story as she painted it, although it came off scripted and rehearsed, seemed entirely possible as I could imagine it. This is the essential problem with political figures. All we know is Al Gore the Vice President, Al Gore the anti-global-warming pioneer, Al Gore, the guy who technically beat Bush in 2000. Like most national political figures, however, the man remains a mystery on any personal level. Yeah, there was that time he tried to act cool and smooch his wife at the DNC. But if you watch it again, you'll see it’s quite cringe-worthy.

“I would have seriously been questioning the situation because a hug before a session with an unknown male client is a bit odd and unprofessional according to typical LMT business standards,” Hagerty told reporters. I have to wonder, though (and this is going to be very important throughout the case), what were typical LMT business standards?

I think this was a botched sexual encounter. This supposedly happened back in 2006 and police were just investigating the accusation in January 2009. The Portland police chief is reopening the investigation after Miss Hagerty opened up about the incident to the National Enquirer, the same publication that exposed the affair of John Edwards.  There are more stones unturned according to the police and they plan on resuscitating the case. If nothing else, Hagerty can probably pursue a lawsuit against the police department.

The situation is certainly believable if someone who is accustomed to having things go his way encounters an obstacle and he finds himself unexpectedly begging for sexual relief when he thought it was going to be easy. I mean, he had just had a grueling week of travel and speeches. My guess is that Gore is as charismatic and personable as we see him on TV. So imagine a man with only a little bit of manufactured charm, tries to awkwardly facilitate a sexual encounter.

There is no doubt in my mind, prior to having his advances rejected, that Al Gore imagined a happier ending. Perhaps if he made the woman feel a little more comfortable in what she sometimes did for VIPs, he would have got what he wanted and her dignity would have remained somewhat intact. But, now the masseuse has to deal with a figure like Al Gore and the awkwardness of a guy she could normally just refuse service free of any negative consequence. It was his demanding tone combined with her feeling pressured and few other options that made her go to police. At least Gore and Tipper were able to part ways before this incident went public. As to why the alleged victim didn’t immediately contact the police, she said:

I did not immediately call the police as I deeply fear being made into a public spectacle and my work reputation being destroyed. I was not sure what to tell them and was concerned my story would not be believed since there was no DNA evidence from a completed act for rape. I did not even know what to call what happened to me. I did not know if the police would even want to take a report on this.

Are You Qualified to Vote? - Shaun Hautly

You shouldn’t vote, because you don’t know anything.

Well, let me be nice and say you’re at least proactive in reading this political/current events blog, and are slightly more informed than the average American. Obama won the 2008 election because of marketing. Not because of his experience, points of view, visions, or accomplishments, but because of how well he was marketed. People voted for the word “change,” not for the man. Others voted for McCain because they are pro-life, anti-gay, gun nuts, gung-ho for the war, or any other number of conservative reasons.

Americans need to understand that our president is not a dictator. His views do not become law. He doesn’t even get a vote. He has veto power: that's it. I’ve said this before: Bush was pro-life, yet we still had abortions.

So I propose this new rule for voting:

If you want to vote, you first have to take a test that assures you understand what you’re voting for and how it will affect the country. Questions will include things about the basic structure of American government, the roles of the leaders for whom you’re voting, and the implications of any propositions on the ballot. If you miss ANY of the questions, your votes for those categories will be void. You will not be notified of this. They just won’t count.

Lobbyists prey on the obedience of uninformed voters. Slam campaigns and other publicity stunts skew polls and influence weak voters. This system would make sure that our votes are coming from well-informed citizens. It will also push average citizens to become MORE informed.

If anyone argues against a policy like this being added, it’s because they’re uninformed and afraid of losing their opportunity to vote. However, this policy has NO weak spots. If there is a valid argument against this, I’d love to hear it.