Recently, a member of the 4chan internet forum (an anonymous-posting board that, of late, has been used for internet "terrorism") apparently managed to hack into Sarah Palin's yahoo e-mail account, posting her e-mails and data to the boards.
Story here: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
I've been against these 4chan "scriptkids" for a long time. Their methods are questionable at best, and this board's forced anonymity is enabling criminal activity to be perpetrated in the virtual realm. If a non-anonymous person had hacked this account, there would be severe legal repercussions. But since this board irresponsibly allows such things to happen, and since 4chan does not cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities (as evidenced by their refusal to turn over records of "raids" on the Church of Scientology and on Hal Turner, a talk-show host. These raids were organized on the 4chan and 7chan boards).
I am disgusted by the amazing levels of irresponsibility and jackassery that are allowed to be perpetrated on the internet. That being said, I am not against anonymity on the internet, or against political statements (as long as they are within the confines of the law). Personally, I hope that our authorities can figure out who perpetrated this violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, and then send this anonymous loser to jail, where he belongs. Doubtless, upon being questioned, these "channers" would say that they are only "providing free information". They like to talk about providing information; but they dont' seem to have any qualms about breaking the law to do so. If the situation were reversed (with their "private" e-mail and data being splashed all over the web), no doubt these immature children would start screaming bloody murder about their "rights being violated", and would most likely try to fight back. I'm not advocating the removal of internet privacy, just pointing out the hypocritical policies of these ignorant "channers".
If the chan board admins have any respect at all for the applicable laws (in this country at least, the boards are hosted in another counry), they will turn over information on the anonymous hacker. I don't think they will, though; their track record seems to counter-indicate any shred of being responsible in any way. The website posted images of private e-mails, Sarah Palin's ENTIRE contact list, and personal photos. There are some political e-mails in this account (or were until the account was deleted), which was definitely not a good idea for Gov. Palin. However, if her e-mail account was subject to the same privacy policies as these 4channers' accounts (apparently) are, then the situation would not have happened. Despite being a sitting Governor and a Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is entitled to her privacy just as much as some script-kiddie on a forum board that prides itself on hatred, racism, and immaturity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Feds!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac contributions
I recently found an article online detailing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions (representing a spread of almost 20 years). After seeing the list (available here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html ),
I started to look into exactly who these people are. A few (the "Big 3" Democratic Senators at the top: Obama, Clinton, and Kerry) didn't seem to have any relevant connections. The rest of the top 20, however, DID have some interesting connections.
Almost ALL of them are connected to either the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, or to the House Financial Services Committee. Some, like Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) serve other functions; namely, they are high-ranking officials within their respective parties (Blunt serves as Republican Whip in the House, Pelosi is, of course, the Speaker of the House). Still others, such as Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), serve on other committees; Representative Emanuel serves on the House Ways and Means committee (subcommittee on select revenue measures).
What does all this mean? The article points out that most of the congress-men and -women receiving money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are Democratic representatives. While this may be the case, the Republicans are certainly represented on this list as well. It seems that both parties are dirty in this case.
The government has decided to bail out these companies; the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will cost a great deal: one source ( http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=46d1439e-a2c4-418c-9be0-09be0b9ee60d ) reports that:
"Some reports estimate the government's cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion. ".
A bailout by the federal government will suck our tax-dollars into preotecting the interests of these companies. But who votes for such a bailout? Check the committees that these senators and congresspeople serve on; FM seem to have known exactly what they were doing when they contributed to these candidates' campaigns: protecting their own interests.
As a taxpayer who DOESN'T have a mortgage, I'm disgusted that the federal government would use MY money to bail out irresponsible investors and crooked mortgage companies. I'm completely disappointed in these Senators and Congresspeople, and even more so that they would be allowed to get away with this. But, I guess that's how our political system works.
Here's hoping for some less-corrupt leaders in the future.
I started to look into exactly who these people are. A few (the "Big 3" Democratic Senators at the top: Obama, Clinton, and Kerry) didn't seem to have any relevant connections. The rest of the top 20, however, DID have some interesting connections.
Almost ALL of them are connected to either the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, or to the House Financial Services Committee. Some, like Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) serve other functions; namely, they are high-ranking officials within their respective parties (Blunt serves as Republican Whip in the House, Pelosi is, of course, the Speaker of the House). Still others, such as Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), serve on other committees; Representative Emanuel serves on the House Ways and Means committee (subcommittee on select revenue measures).
What does all this mean? The article points out that most of the congress-men and -women receiving money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are Democratic representatives. While this may be the case, the Republicans are certainly represented on this list as well. It seems that both parties are dirty in this case.
The government has decided to bail out these companies; the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will cost a great deal: one source ( http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=46d1439e-a2c4-418c-9be0-09be0b9ee60d ) reports that:
"Some reports estimate the government's cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion. ".
A bailout by the federal government will suck our tax-dollars into preotecting the interests of these companies. But who votes for such a bailout? Check the committees that these senators and congresspeople serve on; FM seem to have known exactly what they were doing when they contributed to these candidates' campaigns: protecting their own interests.
As a taxpayer who DOESN'T have a mortgage, I'm disgusted that the federal government would use MY money to bail out irresponsible investors and crooked mortgage companies. I'm completely disappointed in these Senators and Congresspeople, and even more so that they would be allowed to get away with this. But, I guess that's how our political system works.
Here's hoping for some less-corrupt leaders in the future.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Political ranting
I am ridiculously sick of the entire election cycle this year: The madness is just too much. With both candidates completely botching their VP picks (Biden was a terrible choice for a liberal ticket, and Palin seems to be too controversial for a conservative ticket) and widespread chaos erupting at BOTH national conventions - this always seems to happen, but in an election year when the hit buzzword is "change", why are we seeing more of the same?
Both parties seem to have presented us with a field of only halfway-decent candidates. In an election year when the Democrats should be able to win the White House with ANY good candidate, why are both parties so close in the polls? It's almost as though neither party "really" wants to win this one - whoever's the last man standing winds up getting stuck with the problems that the Bush administration will leave behind.
McCain was doing so well - polls had him only trailing Obama by a single point, at least as his VP pick was announced; however, popular opinion seems to be turning against Palin (one source I read had the odds of her dropping out of the race as high as 12%; another blogger was running a betting pool on when she would drop out - not much faith in this one).
Obama's VP pick (in my opinion) should have been thoguht about a bit more. Joe Biden? Obama is alienating a lot of his tech-literate supporters (supposedly one of his target audiences) by choosing Biden, whose record in technological areas is less than stellar. As the "ham sandwich" to Obama's "arugula salad" (or some such nonsense; political commentators can be weird with their metaphors), and given Biden's history of supporting McCain publicly, he would seem a better candidate for a republican ticket. Whatever.
Seeing monday night's coverage of the RNC in Minnesota was depressing; the room was almost empty (at least when I was watching; it was before the speakers began). It seems that the Republican party is losing a lot of ground in this election, but it's only minutely visible in the polls - Obama leads by 6 points among registered voters, but with 5% undecided and with the RNC still ongoing, we will have to wait to see the impact of the Republican speakers on these numbers.
With the threat of the Cold War returning to haunt us (and with Putin's aggressive stances towards Georgia as the jumping-off point, why shouldn't we suspect such a thing is starting?), I just hope that whoever wins this ugly election is prepared to deal with the ongoing problems in the Middle East, as well as the re-emerging Soviet Union.
Good luck to all candidates!
Both parties seem to have presented us with a field of only halfway-decent candidates. In an election year when the Democrats should be able to win the White House with ANY good candidate, why are both parties so close in the polls? It's almost as though neither party "really" wants to win this one - whoever's the last man standing winds up getting stuck with the problems that the Bush administration will leave behind.
McCain was doing so well - polls had him only trailing Obama by a single point, at least as his VP pick was announced; however, popular opinion seems to be turning against Palin (one source I read had the odds of her dropping out of the race as high as 12%; another blogger was running a betting pool on when she would drop out - not much faith in this one).
Obama's VP pick (in my opinion) should have been thoguht about a bit more. Joe Biden? Obama is alienating a lot of his tech-literate supporters (supposedly one of his target audiences) by choosing Biden, whose record in technological areas is less than stellar. As the "ham sandwich" to Obama's "arugula salad" (or some such nonsense; political commentators can be weird with their metaphors), and given Biden's history of supporting McCain publicly, he would seem a better candidate for a republican ticket. Whatever.
Seeing monday night's coverage of the RNC in Minnesota was depressing; the room was almost empty (at least when I was watching; it was before the speakers began). It seems that the Republican party is losing a lot of ground in this election, but it's only minutely visible in the polls - Obama leads by 6 points among registered voters, but with 5% undecided and with the RNC still ongoing, we will have to wait to see the impact of the Republican speakers on these numbers.
With the threat of the Cold War returning to haunt us (and with Putin's aggressive stances towards Georgia as the jumping-off point, why shouldn't we suspect such a thing is starting?), I just hope that whoever wins this ugly election is prepared to deal with the ongoing problems in the Middle East, as well as the re-emerging Soviet Union.
Good luck to all candidates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
