Earlier this year there was a big old controversy over the fact that al Jazeera had shown some pictures of dead US soldiers. This led to hacker attacks on the al Jazeera English website, the banning of al Jazeera reporters from the NYSE and NASDAQ, as well as others, and led to the problems that al Jazeera is having right now in trying to get the CRTC to allow cable compnies in this country to carry the Arab news network.

So, blah blah blah, we all know about the Iraq war and all the stuff that happened during and since. No need for me to bore you any more than I have to, so I'll skip over that. Also I'm sure that a lot of the folks who read this humble blog know a lot more about the Iraq war and it's aftermath than I do. Anyway, the aftermath of the war can probably be boiled down to one sentence. Where's the Beef? "Beef" referring to any sort of evidence to justify the US invasion.

According to the Yanks, the Pentagon, and the Bush Administration, showing pics of dead combatants or POWs constitutes a war crime. Earlier this year, the Pentagon talking heads were talking about seeking out those responsible for displaying pictures that showed the faces of dead Yanks and Yank POWs, and having them charged under article 13 of the Geneva convention.

Enter the new fact that the US military today released pics of the dead sons of Saddam Hussein, still apparently considered combatants by the US.

The pro-war folks were all worked up about this stuff in March and April, becoming overnight experts on the Geneva convention. Perhaps those pro-war folks wouldn't mind telling us where in the convention it says that the Yanks are allowed to do this but nobody else is. Maybe that's in article 14?
Just got an e-mail from someone who doesn't like conservatives, and is blaming me for everything from Paul Celluci's remarks to being one of the pro-Bush losers who defend every inane thing that he does.

Obviously this gentleman (I'll withhold the name, as it's obvious that his anger is not at me, but at what he believes I represent) needs to take some time and go through my past entries. However, I did find his first line very interesting:

"Read your article "who is staging who" happened to come across it on the net."

Anyone who reads my blog knows I don't write articles, just semi-connected groups of sentences. When I'm finished writing a post to my blog, the best i usually hope for is that I don't sound like a complete idiot, although I most certainly am one.

Anyways, thank you for the input D.B. You might want to try reading more of my crap before you judge me.
Has anyone noticed a sharp rise in the amount of garbage on the internet lately? It seems like there are becoming more and more web pages that have other stuff attached to them, little programs that want to install themselves onto your computer, or popup ads. A variation of the popup ad is the popunder ad, one that pops up underneath the window you are using, so that it won't be seen until you are finished and close out of Internet Explorer (or whatever browser you're using).
In the US, they are considering legislation to limit or ban spam and telemarketing. Ironically, clicking on that link generates a pop-up. If there are any Yanks reading (or in fact anyone at all...), here's a link you can use to register for the "do not call" registry.

Personally, I have my browser set so that I get a message asking if I want any scripting to run when I go to a page. Usually I click "no", and I'm given a message saying that my current settings may cause the page not to display properly, but so far I've never had a single problem. I prefer this to having stuff happen on my computer that I don't know about. As well I run "ad-aware" frequently to clean off any little programs that have found their way onto my 'puter, and it usually cleans off between 5-50 tracking files or programs that have self-installed each time I run it.

I have high-speed internet, but there are still a lot of people who don't and those folks with their 14.4 modems an their 56k modems cannot afford to have malicious software stealing their bandwidth. Actually it's not really stealing, since most dial-up users pay for a certain amount of hours of internet access, as opposed to paying for a set amount of bandwidth use. As a Sympatico user, I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth usage, so the folks who are sending me extra little programs that I haven't asked for, are stealing some of my bandwidth usage from me.

I love my computer and I'm sort-of addicted to the internet, and it would be a shame to see the 'net go the way of WordPerfect.
those wacky Franksters

The folks at Frank Forum are well known for being wacky and irreverent. OK that's a bit of a stretch, most people who've come across their playground would describe them wacko and irrelevant, or something similar.

Either way, Frank Forum is a great way to feel young again. Become a regular there, and within weeks you'll be posting like a 10 year old.

Anyway....what was it I had to say about them?...oh yeah. Today one of the "Franksters", as they like to be called, has accused Vancouver journalist and blogger Ian King of plagiarism. This person believes that King "takes ALL his material and analysis directly from this here forum".

By "this here forum", he's referring to one in which a hot discussion has been raging since December on the topic of "Ann Rohmer's Breasts". The latest post on the topic is a collection of anagrams of the words "Ann Rohmer's breasts". Here's the list of anagrams, copied shamelessly from the forum:

*** start quote ***









and my personal favourite:

*** end quote ***

Ok, sure, I have to admit I'm a bit impressed by this list. However it is not on the same level as Mr. King's articles. In fact the Frank Forum post that accused Mr. King of plagiarism is typical of the sort of thing you'll find on Frank Forum. These Franksters want desperately to feel that they are being noticed by the real world. Not long ago, they were accusing the readers of one of the country's newspaper chains of trying to take over their forum.

This group of pre-pubescent 40 year-olds can relax. They don't have to worry about anyone plagiarizing their thoughts, other than me perhaps.
Paul Kariya has willingly given up a $10 million/ year paycheque to move to another team, the Colorado Nordiques/Avalanche, for a salary of less than $2 million per year.

Well, there is more to it than that, but Kariya has proven that there are still players who are playing primarily for their love of the game. I've always said that the majority of NHL players would still play in the NHL even if their salaries were not so outrageous. Most kids growing up dream of playing in the NHL not because of the money, but because it is the NHL.

When I was a kid playing organized hockey, that was our dream, to make it through peewees, then to bantam, midgets, juniors and the high school team, and then on to the big leagues. We never dreamed about playing to get rich.

Of course after next year the NHLPA contract expires and we will likely hear a lot of talk about how hockey players don't get paid as much as baseball players, and we'll see a lot of our favourite players wearing their NHLPA paraphernalia.

We can hope however, that there is a growing trend in the NHL towards playing for the sake of winning instead of for dollars.

And while we are on the topic of players who like big salaries, and since the current Kariya story involves the former Quebec Nordiques, I want Eric Lindros to know that Canadian hockey fans haven't forgotten how he stabbed the fans of the Nordiques in the back, and possibly helped cause Quebec City to lose a powerful hockey team.

Lindros can still go fuck himself.