Definitions of leaks

Some bloggers do have ears for the leaks, but mainly those go straight from the government's lips to AP, NYT or WSJ "sources" then the bloggers go to work. I wrote about this maybe 2.5 years ago, and found these definitions really interesting. Leaks about the current financial crisis weren't too important. It was all out there loud and clear. Even the talking heads could hear Maxine and Barney defending Fannie, and no one cared because their own portfolios were doing fine. We all wanted to believe the house of cards built in the suburbs was the "American dream" for people who couldn't afford it.

Source: Stephen Hess. The Government/Press Connection: Press Officers and their Offices. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution, 1984. 77-79;

Ego Leak: Giving information primarily to satisfy a sense of self.

Goodwill Leak: Information offered to “accumulate credit” as a play for a future favor.

Policy Leak: A straightforward pitch for or against a proposal using some document or insider information as the lure to get more attention than might be otherwise justified. The leak of the Pentagon Papers falls into this category.

Animus Leak: Used to settle grudges; information is released in order to cause embarrassment to another person.

Trial-Balloon Leak: Revealing a proposal that is under consideration in order to assess its assets and liabilities. Usually proponents have too much invested in a proposal to want to leave it to the vagaries of the press and public opinion. More likely, those who send up a trial balloon want to see it shot down, and because it is easier to generate opposition to almost anything than to build support, this is the most likely effect.

Whistleblower Leak: Usually used by career personnel; going to the press may be the last resort of frustrated civil servants who feel they cannot resolve their dispute through administrative channels. Hess is careful to point out that Whistleblowing is not synonymous with leaking.

Bolstered by Congress?

"Open access pioneer BioMed Central has been acquired by Springer, ScientificAmerican.com has learned.

Open access is the movement, recently bolstered by Congress, to make studies available for free online, instead of charging taxpayers who funded the research (and others) to read them. Many prominent scientists have backed it, signing on with BioMed Central and a non-profit open access publisher, the Public Library of Science". Full article and links at Scientific American.com

The idea that the federal government isn't already involved up to its eyeballs in all scientific research is bogus in itself. The only thing different about "open access" is that at one step--early publication--you should not have to pay to see what you've already paid for. You pay many times over--you fund the researchers (you've probably already paid for their education) at their various institutions through the grants they get from various government agencies, then those institutions skim a huge amount to keep the university running, including the library, which in turn keep those programs going that don't have a cash cow. This in turn eats up a huge amount of time of the faculty, which is why you are paying for your kid to be taught by a grad student from India or China, rather than a full professor, who has to be off in the lab researching and publishing so he can keep his job, which is to hire more foreign nationals to teach your kids. Then you are charged again for that research when it appears in peer-reviewed scientific journals which the library has to buy so the researchers can keep applying for more government grants. A decade ago librarians were all caught up in the idea that the internet was going to be our savior, but sadly have learned otherwise, because business and Congress were just much more clever than we were. This symbiotic relationship, this coziness between research and politics is best illustrated by the shut down of scientific debate on the hoax of human caused climate change--just one example of why science isn't impartial when you let international left wing organizations, Hollywood and Congress control it.

Justice and Redistribution

The Christian evangelical Left parallels the rise of the radical far Left in American politics. That's why I don't see a conflict with calling Obama a Christian and a marxist. I am not one who was surprised that Obama stayed with Wright's church. Like many churches, it runs programs for the poor, such as housing, food, clothing, but it also receives funding from the government to do so. That money comes from you and me in the form of taxes. Sometimes it is a summer lunch program, sometimes it is rehabilitating older housing, or it may be career or job training (or subsidies for barely working). Christians see this as "distributive justice" (or more accurately, redistributing our wealth). There is also a far left wing among mainline protestants and Roman Catholics. Together these three groups are the Religious Left. They all have their own organizations, many of which receive money from the government as well as their denominations to fund their programs and achieve their goals, which are often in line with those of the government.

Justice in the Bible is synonymous with righteousness, which is an attribute of God. Man, made in God's image, was also righteous before the Fall, but now is a sinner and receives Jesus' righteousness by faith. The "good news" includes concern for the whole person, but leftist Christians have distorted the Biblical view with the idea that government needs to redistribute goods and services through taxation to achieve justice. Thus the state can be God's representative on earth.

The following is from Stewardship Journal, Winter 1991, "The Christian Debate over Justice and Rights" by Ronald H. Nash, 29-40.

The most elementary analysis of the Religious Left's writings about justice makes it clear that they are interested almost exclusively in questions of distributive justice. When one's announced intention is to help the poor, it is probably inevitable that one's emphasis will be upon distributing (or rather redistributing) society's wealth. . . Political liberals concerned with distributive justice on the level of an entire society usually try to disguise the fact that the redistribution of a society's holdings they wish to institute must be enacted through coercion, that is, through the state or government forcing people in some way or other.

On several occasions, I have heard my friend Ron Sider give eloquent appeals to rich Christians in America to spread their wealth around to help the poor. I am often mystified as to why Sider fails to tell his audiences that what he desires is for the state or government to effect his desired redistribution of wealth through force, that is, through taxation (the IRS, after all, does not suggest that one make a donation). Some of Sider's followers obviously sense that he is an apologist for higher taxes that will supposedly support greatly expanded liberal social programs. Others seem to miss this obvious point and simply get caught up in the idealism of a noble crusade to help the poor.

Please note the big difference between Christians voluntarily giving their own money to fund programs to help the poor and the quite different situations in which agents of the state take other people's money, keep a large chunk of it to pay their inflated salaries, and use some of what's left to fund counter-productive and self-defeating programs that end up making life even more miserable for the poor. . .

Social or distributive justice as liberals view it is possible only in a society that is controlled from the top down. There must be a central agency with the power to force people to accept the liberals' preferred pattern of distribution. . . What liberals call justice is a setting in which representatives of the state, the most powerful and coercive institution on earth, are empowered continually to take from some in order to give to others, taking care in the process that they keep enough to pay their own salaries. . .

Devotees of liberal "social justice" often fail to see how their position leads to an aggrandizement of state power, how it enslaves people to the state. They too easily overlook the massive threat the institution of the state poses to human liberty. . .

Christian political liberals want the state to use its vast powers of coercion to force everyone in society to help attain the Christian's ends. . . [They] often use the doctrine of Christian stewardship in an attempt to justify their commitment to statism. . . Christian stewardship is perverted into a doctrine that obliges Christians to surrender their judgment, will, and resources to the liberal state which, in the view of the Religious Left, becomes God's surrogate on earth. (p. 31)

Never believe a promise that they'll only tax the other guy

That's class warfare. Class envy. Obama can't reduce taxes for 95% of Americans, since about 1/3 don't pay taxes anyway. Here's what to remember the last time a charismatic candidate promised to tax the rich and give you a break.

“Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:

"Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

p. 1 NYT . . . "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan." About That Middle-Class Tax Cut . . .

Why health care insurance is so expensive

"As a state senator in Illinois, [Obama] voted to require that dental anesthesia be covered by every health plan for difficult medical cases. Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. Other mandates require coverage of infertility treatments, drug rehab, "personal injuries" incurred while intoxicated, and other forms of care.

By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage." Insider scoop, By Scott Gottlieb - WSJ 05-06-08

Who's left?

I used to stare at the list of 50 or so organizations on the campus willing to help me, a poor lil'ol weak, helpless female, and wonder why with all the local, county, state and federal laws and local and national organizations in place and living in the best country in the world, I needed so much help. That was about 10 years ago. Slicing and dicing the university community into small manageable groups (academe is very liberal, in case you hadn't noticed) continues. I wondered who was not eligible in this announcement. I really think I might be eligible for something (age? marital status?) even though my Wenger ancestors left Switzerland in the 1740s. I just need to find someone who thinks blogging is important and can nominate me. If you cast your net broadly enough, I suppose you ensure your continued existance.

“The Distinguished Diversity Enhancement Awards recognize individuals or groups who have demonstrated a significant commitment to enhancing diversity at Ohio State and to exceeding expectations in implementing the Diversity Action Plan. The program, now in its 21st year, rewards efforts to enhance diversity on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, disability, veteran or military service status, gender identity, economic status, political belief, marital status or social background.” Recognizing excellence, OSU Resources

OSU Increases Adoption Assistance Benefit for 2009

The Adoption Assistance Program reimburses eligible employees for adoption-related expenses upon placement of a minor child in the employee's home. In 2009, the university will increase its reimbursement amount from $4,000 to $5,000 per adopted child.

Adoptions eligible for the benefit should meet the following criteria:

• Adopted children must be under 18 years of age.

• Adopted children may or may not be biologically related to either parent.

• Adoptions are made through public, private, domestic, international, and independent means.

Looks like if you adopt your own step-child, you can get $5,000.

How McCain handed the election to Obama

"McCain unaccountably failed to make his strongest argument [about the economy]. The roots of the crisis lie in both parties' encouragement of greater home ownership. But at critical points, notably in 2005, some Republicans, including McCain, called for tighter regulation of the mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was resisted by Democrats, with no demur from obama." Michael Barone, column in Columbus Dispatch, 10-7-08.

Obama has promised so much based on taxing the rich, promoting class warfare, and now they'll all show losses. That's a lot of angry, expectant, greedy people. So, you know who's next in line for more taxes. You and me.

The Taxman Rap
by Norma Bruce
June 10, 2008

More new taxes
to buy axes
for our backses
and our neckses

for our gases
and our classes
(just the riches'
and the niches.)

Yo! Obama
Go! Oh mama
You our Papa
You Messiah.

Obama can
He is the man
He do the plan
He be the taxman.

Global Economic Challenge

C-SPAN covered an interesting conference yesterday called Global Economic Challenge. The first guy said that when he accepted the invitation to speak a year ago, he had no idea we'd be in the middle of this mess. I thought that was quite telling because I wrote a poem about the mess at Fannie and Fred in September 2007. If I noticed it, I wonder why the economists on the panel didn't. Or maybe they did and Congress stonewalled them as they did Bush.

Paul Krugman was on the panel. He and Thomas Sowell are about the only economists I've read. His comments were interesting to say the least, in that he really had no answers. He was extremely hesitant--almost as many "ahs" and "uhs" as Barack Obama as he thought his way through his responses. There were lots of "could be" and "it's not compelling" type phrases. However, in discussing how our problem has spread world wide he reminded me of something I'd completely forgotten; the Asian economic contagion of 1997-1999. The only reason I remember it at all is that it started in tiny Thailand and spread through out Asia. A Thai PhD student came to me looking for a job. Not only had her government scholarship money dried up, but her very wealthy family had been wiped out. She had even sold her jewelry. Usually I didn't hire this type of student because they often don't do well in repetitive library routines, but I felt sorry for her and for the few months she worked for me, she was able to perform some complex jobs. Her IQ probably qualified her for Mensa. As soon as the college offered her an assistantship, she quit.

Krugman did make some memorable points, however. It isn't just the trade linkages--where we're buying less from other countries and hurting their economies. Diversity, which is recommended for the private investor, actually hurts us in the global economy. Many of our assets are foreign owned, so that affects the world economy. Krugman didn't like the Paulson Plan--he joked that it should be called "Bailey Mae" or "Hanky Panky." Capital has been destroyed he said, and Paulson has "grabbed the wrong end of the stick." (Note the complex economic jargon.) He should have injected capital, but time was wasted as well as political capital.

In conclusion, with one tiny jab at the Bush Administration (the lack of blame here I think indicates that the Bush admin is not to blame) he said, "This is amazing stuff," which I'm sure the audience found helpful, and that "We need clear thinking."

Guess I'll keep checking the blogs for links to CRA and ACORN. Good intentions run amuck, or Fox watching the hen house sounds about as useful an explanation as "stuff out of whack" and "burst housing bubble."


Freddie and Fannie
Sept. 29, 2007
by Norma Bruce

Freddie and Fannie
went up to Capitol Hill
to fawn for a bigger profit
Sticking you and me with the bill.

With help from our taxes
They'll package and resell,
a windfall for the banks and rich,
for the rest of us, economic hell.

Years ago the original aim
was to help the struggling poor.
Now they seek those jumbo loans--
Congress and Bush! Show them the door!

ACORN, Obama, Ayers, Fannie, and the subprime mess

My, what a tangled web this is. Check here for the chart and explanations. They're not just sticky fingered crooks registering dead people, they're actually big time players. Also check this blog.

Start tracking the housing money in your state. You'll probably find some of the same connections.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley

"Democrats largely supported it at the time, and one of their own, Bill Clinton, signed it. Now they frame it as a Republican bill that helped send the nation on the path to perdition."

Even Bill Clinton has been interviewed recently as saying it was a good idea, and of course, he could have vetoed it. So why do we let the Democrats get away with saying it is the Republicans and deregulation's fault? Here's what happened.

Modernized the rules, says IBD.

The mistakes had nothing to do with the 1999 law.

Pumping up home ownership was good for business and good for the politicians--all of them.

A new multitrillion-dollar market emerged

And what happened from there to cause the collapse needs to be investigated.

Well, maybe, but we sure shouldn't put Barney Frank in charge, he definitely needs to go; and congress definitely shouldn't be patting themselves on the back!

Not everyone in Chicago shrugs

New York Times was late to the story--it is after all, an Obama supporter--about Barack Obama and terrorist Bill Ayers, but Chicago never really cared much, said Editor and Publisher back in April. However,

"Chicago's pundit class is not exactly unanimous on shrugging off the Obama/Ayers connection. Steve Chapman, a Chicago Tribune columnist of libertarian bent who also serves on the paper's editorial board, argued Sunday that the relationship, which he said Obama was disingenuously trying to downplay, does matter.

"It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans," Chapman wrote. "Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

"You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it." "

And it's true, Bill Ayers hasn't planted any bombs lately; but he also has done no jail time like some of his buddies who committed the same crimes. Do you suppose in 20-30 years the families of the the 9/11 victims will be this casual about criminals?

Maybe it's Chicago's image of their hometown boy--it just doesn't gibe with hanging out with terrorists. They see him as a "cautious, conservative, ultra-pragmatic legislator hack."

"But locally, Obama is far more likely to be rapped for being too palsy, or at least endorsing, the feckless president of the Cook County Board, Todd Stroger. Chicago media critic Steve Rhodes, in his blog The Beachwood Reporter, rarely lets slip an opportunity to contrast Obama's national image as a daring leader who will bring "change you can believe in" with his get-along, go-along relationship with city and Cook County political hacks."

On the campaign trail

Senator John McCain holds a rally at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. Gov. Sarah Palin holds rallies in Clearwater and Estero, Florida. John and Sarah are then back in Ohio on the 8th and 9th. Not sure what the attraction of Wilmington, Ohio, is--pretty liberal place. Maybe that's why she's alone. Can talk to those college kids. Joe Biden is in Wilmington, Delaware with no public events planned while he looks for that restaurant that closed 25 years ago that he lied about during the debates. Guess he doesn't get home much.

McCain seems to be wimping out--wants to be the good guy, so Sarah is sent out to soften up the opposition. He must have believed the MSM press back when they were so thrilled he was a RINO--but they will crush him now if he so much as lays a glove on Obama. You know, the crowds like Sarah, and she may be the biggest reason people are supporting him, but I'm just old fashioned enough that I don't think this is her job. Come on John. Let's see some of that toughness that got you through your POW days.

Road to Victory Rally with John McCain and Sarah Palin-Strongsville, OH
Strongsville City Commons
Corner of Rt. 81 and Rt. 42
Strongsville, OH 44136
Doors Open: 2:15pm
Wednesday, October 8th

Road to Victory Rally with Sarah Palin-Wilmington, OH
The Roberts Centre
123 Gano Rd.
Wilmington, OH 45177
Doors Open: 4:00pm
Thursday, October 9th

Vote Democrat

Three Strikes Librarian had this on his site. Pretty good.



Mr. 3 Strikes says he's a straight male, Republican, Catholic Christian Librarian.

Sowell says we don't deserve Obama

"The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public [on the Democrats' responsibility for the meltdown/bailout]. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don’t seem to know what it is to counterattack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America." Do Facts Matter?

A leader who has never led

"Obama is a cipher, an easy repository for the hopes and dreams of liberals everywhere...But if Obama avoided being battle-tested in 2004 by the grace of God, it's his own timidity that has kept his name clean since. Given his national profile and formidable political talents, he could have been a potent spokesman for Democratic causes in the Senate. Instead, he has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue, preferring to offer anodyne pieces of legislation and sign on to the popular efforts of others...Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt. He won election running basically unopposed, and then refused to open himself to attack by making a controversial but correct issue his own." Link here via Ali Sina.

Sina concludes Obama is a narcissist with a weak sense of self. That I don't know, however, the following is a fairly accurate description of some of his followers who feel personally attacted if you don't like him or think he is bad for America. I would like to see McCain-Palin win, but I don't feel personally attacted if you don't agree.

"The narcissist’s anger and intolerance is projected on his servile followers who also become angry and intolerant of criticism of their leader. Remember the sick symbiosis between the narcissist and his codependents? The followers get their narcissistic supply by elevating the status of their leader. The greater he looks, the better they feel. They see their glory is his glory. Conversely, when the narcissist is criticized, his followers become offended. They take those criticisms personally and their instinct of self defense is triggered. They will become vigilantes and will silence their critics through intimidation, bullying, mocking, threats and violence (like calling those who disagree with Obama, racists)."

Alinskyian trained Catholic laity

“The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost: Obama, ACORN, and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” by Stephanie Block, The Wanderer editorial, via Illinois Review

"For nearly forty years, The Wanderer has followed the Catholic Campaign for Human Development’s funding of radical, left-wing political organizations, many of them carrying the brand of Saul Alinsky. The Wanderer also covered the first Call to Action conference – the months of “hearings” leading up to it, its orchestrated structure and contrived demands – and our reporters commented on the Alinskyian nature of it, not merely in its tactics but in its outcomes. In hindsight, we can see that organized dissent in the Church was a product of organized parishes, filled with Alinskyian-trained laity.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is responsible for that. . .

. . . Even the politically naïve are fascinated by the pejorative dismissal of Obama as a “community organizer” and his campaign’s rebuttal that to disrespect community organizers is to disrespect Catholic Action. Obama isn’t Catholic. Catholic thought hasn’t subtly filtered into this ecumenical movement. Amoral [Saul Alinsky] thought, on the other hand, has clearly filtered into Catholic circles – to such a degree that some people confuse one for the other."

Polling the pollsters

I asked Google if Pew Research Center was liberal or conservative, because I've been reading Pew research since the late 80s and have always seen it tracking a bit to the left--not horribly, but certainly there. While I was looking for some evidence (haven't found it yet) I turned up this:

Good Morning America on Wednesday reported on a new Quinnipiac poll that highlighted leads for Barack Obama in Florida and Ohio, but completely skipped the network's own national poll that found a tight race. A September 30 ABC News/Washington Post survey concluded that Obama leads Senator McCain by four points -- 50 to 46 percent. In contrast, GMA last week trumpeted an ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed Obama with a nine point lead. On September 24, former Democratic aide-turned journalist George Stephanopoulos touted the larger lead and asserted, "...You have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost." He mentioned that on the issue of the economy, the Illinois Senator is "blowing away John McCain." An onscreen graphic proclaimed: "Obama Surges Ahead." But, just a week later, GMA not only ignored findings suggesting a closer national race, the morning show highlighted a rival poll's state numbers. CyberAlert (which tracks liberal media)

The search developed because I had been listening to an NPR program which interviewed a Pew Research person who reported that confidence in the media was as low as it had been since 1973, and people didn't believe what they were being told about the bailout. But he said the media were misleading us about the bailout--at least I think that's what he said, and that calls and e-mails to Congresses were politically driven. Only the most vocal and political contacted their Congressional representative. Imagine! Wouldn't that be true of bloggers and the foot soldiers in the campaigns, too? On what basis should the electorate be contacting their representatives?

I didn't spend much time looking through the results, because Pew has set the rules for polling and it's difficult to accurately assess your own bias. But I did rediscover (used to know this) that the U.S. has the lowest voting turnout of functioning democracies. 2004 numbers were higher (60%), but usually it's about 50% (The Psychology of Media and Politics By George A. Comstock, 2005).

Everyone who says she doesn't pay attention to polls, including me, is always happy to see her own team go up in the polls.

O'Biden's tales

I had heard that there were at least 14 big ones told by old Joe at the debate Thursday night, but like the foreign money being pumped into the Obama-Biden campaign, we'll probably not see him called on it. But a few have. Here's a piece from Investor's Business Daily:

". . . neither Carter nor Bill Clinton, whose twists and turns before a grand jury led to his impeachment, ever stared into the camera and spouted such a string of outright fabrications as if they were gospel truths the way Barack Obama's running mate did last week.

Thankfully, the blogosphere has been having a field day cataloguing Joe's whoppers. First, as InstaPundit's Michael Totten instantly noted after the debate, Biden — the great, seasoned foreign policy expert who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — falsely claimed France and the U.S. "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon."

Other whoppers on the menu:

accusation that John McCain is soft on regulation, when in fact he tried to beef up regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

falsely claiming that Obama didn't pledge to meet with Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

falsely claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin supported a windfall profits tax on oil companies

saying he's always been for clean coal in spite of his record of voting against it in the Senate

pretending he and Obama are in favor of drilling for oil

lied about the surge

lied about McCain's health care plan

was 2000% off on his claims about war costs

but, and how pitiful is this,
the restaurant he invited folks to in Wilmington hasn't been around in decades!

You Democrats have got yourselves a winner here. Someone who can out-deceive Bill Clinton is quite a master. There are people who believe their own lies and are insulted when called on it. Joe seems to be one of those. Obama, on the other hand, most likely knows he's lying. But, Joe is likeable and I suppose brings some gravitas to the ticket.

Phishing Scams

Have you been getting e-mail from Google reporting you need to download something? Or something from your bank about updating your account? Google doesn’t send those and neither do banks. Ignore them. The messages from the phony Google vary (many domain names), but all tell you that you won’t be able to log in to Google if you don’t comply. Often you can tell right away it is a bogus site, says Dennis at Almost a Newsletter by lightly passing the cursor over the link, but sometimes the crooks are really clever. For more details on the Google, bank, and career sites phishing problem, Dennis suggests Gary Warner’s CyberCrime blog.

I get a lot of e-mail about my debt. Those automatically go in the trash through the filter (I don’t have any debt so I know they are phishing, nor do I have accounts at those banks). Some days I get about 50 messages about "returned, or non-deliverable e-mail." Those are also trashed. Then I’ll get a run of items all in Russian. Trash ‘em. Don’t get caught in the phisher’s net.

After finishing the item at Gary's blog about Google I looked at some other entries and found his a fascinating source. Thank you, Dennis, for the link. Between the porn peddlers and the scammers, the internet has really become a cesspool. I'm beginning to think that those of us who use it for fun or legitimate information are becoming the minority.

I’ve been following Dennis' newsletter for years from back in the 90s when I had a real web site and needed help with code. He’s upbeat, helpful and offers a lot of free tips (but you will want to buy a subscription or his e-books if you do this for a living).