In order to deal with the enourmouse state deficit, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn claims he must raise Illinois income taxes by 50%. The legislation, defeated by Illinois House GOPs, follows a prior tax and fee increases, which passed in March of this year. Gov. Quinn continues to appeal to voters for the increase by suggesting that programs for children and the elderly will otherwise have to be cut by as much as 50%. 

Republican leader Christine Radogno condemns the tax hike, as well as Gov. Quinn’s threats as being fear tactics and called them, “wrong, wrong, wrong.”

I disagree with Radogno. In fact, taking a page from Governor Quinn’s book, I have told my teenage daughter that she doesn’t contribute enough to the household budget. She has been threatened that if she doesn’t earn more money for the household, I will have to sell the house, kill the dog, and stop buying groceries.

I will not be cutting back on satellite television, internet service, cell phones, or entertainment.  After all, you can only do so much!

I am really sick of hearing about the number of "jobs" that have been/will be created by government. Even conservatives have imbibed the liberal-speak cool-aid on the idea of "job creation." Once again, we have allowed liberals to define our language much in the way we let them define our language on the topic of "gay marriage" (an obvious contradiction) or "animal rights" (when an animal requests rights, I'll consider giving it some).

Let's make this very clear: Government does not now and will not ever create jobs. It isn't the nature of government to create jobs. What government creates is called "work".

What's the difference between "jobs" and "work"? The primary difference is that jobs are self-sustaining. Work is simply an economic black hole - you can pour money into work, but you never get a monetary return on your investment.

Why can't government create jobs? Because politicians are not interested in return on investment, at least not as far as dollars and cents. The only return a politician is concerned about is a return to the polls. The only question a politician asks when spending money is how many votes it will garner or lose them.

The evidence on this is very clear - just look at some of the alleged "jobs" created by the recent trillion-plus economic stimulus created: building roadway turtle crossings (are we charging the turtles to cross?), renovating state parks (which, last I checked, were free), swine odor research (how do we make that pay back?), etc. Almost none of the WORK government spends money on has any hope of a return on investment - except in votes. After all, nobody wants to run over turtles crossing the road, and everyone loves a state park, and who wants to smell swine? It's all very "nice", but it all amounts to public works projects that will never earn back what we spend on them.

Jobs, on the other hand, are self-sustaining. Private businesses almost never hire employees that have no hope of ever earning back what they are paid. Salespeople are expected to sell, construction workers are expected to build, and investment is expected to pay off - not in good will, but in actual dollars. If workers do not pay off, they are fired and someone has to work a little bit harder to make up for the loss. Only businesses can create jobs because businesses are concerned about making money - not earning votes.

I am calling on all conservatives to dispense with the liberal concept of "jobs" and start referring to it as "work". Let's not let liberals define the language we use for debate because that concedes the idea that their premise is valid, which it isn't.

Harsh as this statement may seem to the "well-meaning" liberal, it is nonetheless true.  Here's how it works:

First, think of the most fundamental and traditional social unit.  Did you think of a family?  Civilization has been structured around the family “unit” since the dawn of man, so I’m guessing you did.  Even animals recognize the value of family-style relationships as they roam in packs, flocks, or even traditional families.  You might say that a family is a basic form of socialism; members share property, responsibility, and often individuals are required to bear the burdens of others in the group.

Political socialism, a more “respectable” version of communism (Friedrich Engels, 1947), requires individuals to bear the burdens of society.  Socialism replaces the family as the basic socioeconomic unit with a vast group of strangers. There is no affinity among these strangers, and indeed, many wouldn’t hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them. Both socialism and the family cannot exist equally because socialism drains the resources of the family by taxing the individuals who contribute to the household.  This “spreading of the wealth” is a stated objective of socialism. The unstated objective is to destroy the family by shifting your personal economic reliance away from the family.

Let’s look at a very hot topic in terms of the family: socialized medicine. The healthcare industry currently centers on the family. There are family doctors, family healthcare plans, and family-oriented facilities. While some individual care exists, a growing number of individuals without families choose not to purchase healthcare insurance and avoid getting medical attention for less than a major event.

Assuming democrats may one day socialize medicine in the U.S., the medical industry’s family-orientation would be gone forever. Each individual would be born with the right to healthcare. Nobody would be dependent on their family for their health and well-being. The government would take over that role of the family, making the family unit substantially less important to individuals.

Let’s look at something that has already been socialized: education. How many parents’ responsibility for parenting is taken over by the schools? Sex is taught by the school. Politics are taught by the school. Schools influence a child’s entire belief system. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” This is the socialist ideal.

Many parents attempt to fight the system but in the end, many parents simply turn their children’s education over to the state. The numbers of children who aren’t raised by the state grow fewer and fewer and adult freethinkers are becoming scarce. The unique ideas that come from the family microcosm have been diminished through nationalized education.

It is no mystery that when social conservatives react strongly when they hear the term, “gay marriage.” Americans that have been raised with strong family values are naturally averse to such a cheapening of the concept of family. While no different in practice, “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” garner much less resistance simply because they don’t appear to intrude on the endangered institution of marriage.

The most interesting phenomenon is how many Americans are in denial about the advance of socialism. Weakening the family is a concept right out of the Karl Marx handbook, “The Communist Manifesto”. As stated therein, “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

This brings us to our final anti-family concept, “spreading the wealth around” (Barak Obama to Joe “the Plumber”, campaign 2008). The principal of property ownership is a concept that is constantly being threatened by the liberal “progressive movement.” The fruits of your labors should not be yours to keep, but should be shared with the entire country, primarily via a multi-tiered tax system. If someone lacks the talent or ambition to work as hard as you do, then you should work incrementally harder so those less gifted don’t have to. Indeed, no aspect of who you are should be allowed to prosper at the expense of someone else.

The flaw in this liberal belief is that one must ALWAYS prosper at the cost of someone else. Yet in practice, we know that when a man paves a road to benefit himself, it can serve everyone around him as well. When people have money to spend to enhance their own lifestyle, there is always someone selling to them who, in turn, enhance their own lifestyle. Economics is NOT a “zero-sum game.” You CAN enrich your own life while enriching the lives of others as well. The buyer and the seller both gain from a transaction (barring government intervention, of course).

Still, America rushes headlong into socialism – unaware of the forces working to undermine the most fundamental and traditional social unit. Some might say, “Well, it obviously hasn’t happened!” Yet. A pig may be gluttonous, but even a pig will refuse food if it is forced down the pig’s gullet. Democrats are well aware of this principal, and are leading us down the primrose path to the slaughter. I pray that the majority of Americans can see the end of the road before it is too late to turn back.

In spite of the rising swine flu pandemic in Mexico, which is now spilling over into the U.S., Obama and Pelosi stated yesterday that they will not shut down the U.S./Mexican border. The excuse given is that “it’s already here”, which apparently means we should just come to accept the inevitability rather than trying to fight this flu pandemic through quarantines and other outbreak control methods.

This reluctance to fight the outbreak comes as a shock to many, leaving people only the hope that the pandemic won’t be as severe as predicted if, god forbid, they should happen to contract this terrible and potentially deadly virus. But the democrat position of inaction shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The position is rooted deep in democrat philosophy: We, here in America, have not suffered with the rest of the world – and now we can. Yes, we can!

Why should such a position be any surprise after Obama’s “Apology to the World Tour”? After all, America is evil and selfish! The rest of the world is suffering and we refuse to help - at least in the government-mandated way that democrats insist on. Even at the potential cost of thousands of American lives, we still must give our neighbors south of the border full access to all the benefits of American citizenship.

Yes, immigrants and illegal immigrants alike generally support the democrat party, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the reluctance to close the border is politically motivated. It is all based on a deeply-rooted democrat ideal – Americans should be forced to “spread the wealth around”, and we are expected to happily accept hatred, disease, terror, and death in return. The old adage is especially alive in the democrat ideology – no good deed should go unpunished.

In the wake of the republican’s loss of the presidency as well as both houses of congress, many are scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. Most blame the series of bad decisions made by the Bush administration. Others blame McCain’s pathetic presidential campaign. Still others have more complex causes in mind. All of these arguments have merit, but I propose that these are all merely symptoms of the real problem: an abdication of personal responsibility.

I am an independent voter because I believe that a dogmatic vote is an irresponsible vote. So after long and careful consideration, I bit my tongue and voted straight republican in 2008. I knew that an Obama presidency would usher in many more socialist policies than would a McCain presidency. But the national electorate apparently wasn’t as worried about socialism as I was. They are now.

Obama has been true to his campaign promises. Banks and brokers have been effectively nationalized. Financial losers can now enjoy windfalls thanks to Obama’s redistributionist policies. The country’s financial future is being sacrificed now to provide a modicum of relief to a minimum of people. As hard as the recession is on some, Obama is determined to make it equally hard on everyone. Obama’s policies all come down to one thing: abdication of personal responsibility. He believes nobody should suffer the consequences of their own actions. People are starting to wake up to the horrors of socialist policy, and they are starting to react.

But the problem is that McCain wouldn’t have done much better with the financial crisis. He fought for the first major bail-out of the financial industry, and he campaigned on policies of convoluted healthcare credits and one-time tax credits. The icing on the cake is that his campaign overspent, and now he is asking for a bailout from anyone that initially supported him. Not only did he fail to represent personal responsibility in his campaign, but he continues to abdicate responsibility for himself.

Given the choice between Obama and McCain, I admit I had a difficult time deciding. Had I been given the choice between Hillary and McCain, it would have been even more difficult. In spite of some of the goofy socialist nonsense Hillary has written, I believe she may have governed more towards the center than McCain would have (and certainly more than Obama has).

The solution for republicans is staring them in the face: come back to the ideal of personal responsibility. I’m not saying that there can be no societal safety nets. The safety nets are already in place: bankruptcy, unemployment compensation, churches, community centers, and homeless shelters. If these systems can’t handle the influx, shore them up! Repeal the 2005 bankruptcy act if necessary. Increase unemployment contributions if necessary. But there is a big difference between social safety nets and socialism.

Republicans face a wide spectrum of differences within their party. There is the religious right and there is the agnostic center and everything in between. The republican “base” has been marginalized into irrelevancy. Somehow, the party needs to come together. The issue we all share in common is personal responsibility.

There are very few people in this country that want their money redistributed to the undeserving minority. Few Americans believe that people with no motivation, talent, or skill should rule over those who have earned their lifestyle. No sane person would hand a loaded gun to someone who has sworn to murder anyone who gets in their way. Every American has some sense of personal responsibility; even the socialist left believes in a moral imperative, misguided though they may be.

 

If you are confused by the complexities of the current market crisis, you are not alone. The American economy is a delicate and complicated machine. Like a stone dropped in a pond, there can be ripples caused by the slightest disturbance. However, the current market crisis can be boiled down to some very basic events.

The Stone - Improper Lending Policies

There is little doubt what triggered this crisis. Banks and brokers were encouraged by the government to make unreasonable loans and they stumbled over themselves to make it happen. In 2003, the Bush administration warned that these bad loans would lead to a financial crisis, but the warning was ignored by congress. Democrat Barney Frank ridiculed the administration's notion:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (From U.S. News & World Report)

Congress pushed the "feel good" measures to allow the undeserving-of-credit to obtain a mortgage. Not everyone believed it was a good idea, but most Americans can't accept the concept that the majority of poor people deserve to be poor. Popular demand allowed the liberal measures to pass without serious contest.

The First Ripple - Foreclosures

True to form, the majority of those who didn't deserve a mortgage in the first place defaulted on their loans. Hundreds of thousands of loans went into foreclosure. Banks found themselves holding paper and property with little to no value.

Some assert that adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are to blame, and that lenders acted in a predatory manner. As someone who has experienced an ARM, I admit it isn't the most fun loan to repay. However, I wouldn't blame the lender if I wasn't able to pay it. If I know payments on a loan can increase by two percent per year up to a maximum percent, I'm going to figure out if I can pay the maximum percent, not the current percent. That's just common sense. I feel no sympathy for people with no common sense.

The Second Ripple - Fannie May and Freddie Mac

As the top two mortgage lenders, these two institutions found themselves holding the majority of the worthless loans. Investors in these two companies, as well as a number of other financial institutions, lose confidence. They start pulling money. Seemingly overnight, America's financial giants are brought to their knees.

A few CEOs may have caught on and pulled out at the last minute, taking huge investment profits and walking away. Smaller investors wake up one morning to find that many of their investments were worthless. Some people raise an outcry against "corrupt" CEOs that pull out and leave investors holding the bag.

The Third Ripple - A Banking Crisis

No longer assured of any value in a large quantity of their mortgages (referred to as "worthless paper"), banks are also in trouble. People who had no part in the bad investments find that their banks are in trouble. The government at this point steps in because the crisis threatens to overwhelm those who are innocent in the whole mess.

The Fourth Ripple - The Bail-out

This is where we are now. The federal government is now trying to figure out how to fix the national problems that they previously caused by their insistence that everyone deserves a mortgage. Americans are worried that any fix will end up benefitting those who deserve it least. In addition, Americans worry that the fix will be worse than the problem. Any mishandling of the crisis could commit the U.S. economy to a generation-long recession.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is pushing for 700 billion dollars to prop up the failing financial institutions by buying out those worthless mortgages. Cautionary legislators are reluctant to dump that much money into a currently-worthless investment and leave the American people holding the bill for the next fifty years. Somewhere in the middle, an agreement may eventually be reached.

If we are all very lucky, Congress will act rationally and build some controls into whatever they decide to do. These controls need to include accounting reform, industry oversight, and some guaranteed return-on-investment. The last is the most important here. It is possible that by holding the "worthless paper" long enough to ride out the crisis, the paper may increase in value and possibly be sold back at a profit. There needs to be some guarantee that that profit won't go to line someone's pocket, or to pork barrel spending, or to implement some new social program. The only way that money should be used is against the federal deficit or otherwise returned to those who fronted the money in the first place - you and I.

MTV was once the quintessential bastion of youth angst.  I remember as a teenager being told it was "smut" and not to watch it.  I still watched it.  I was a teenager, after all.  It was all about expressing my generation's culture, although for some it probably dictated rather than expressed.

Back then, I thought of MTV as saying "no" to the media censors and airing edgy content.  But I was young then, and I haven't had much reason to revisit the MTV world in the last 20+ years.  That only changed recently because I wanted to see the much-maligned Britney Spears 2007 VMA appearance and it was removed from You-Tube due to copyright concerns.  So I had to see it on MTV's website.

I won't go into depth about what I thought of Britney's performance here, nor am I a Britney fan, but I do want to say that most of the criticism over it was totally undeserved.  It irks me a bit that we treat celebrities as if they were not real people with real feelings and personal problems.  But that is neither here nor there.

The point I want to make here is that political correctness is alive an well, and has overtaken that former bastion of free expression, MTV.  I know this because I wanted to leave a comment about this video, and my comment was censored.  Here is the relevant portion of the comment as it appeared after I posted it:

"Britney (looked) SMOKING HOT! I loved her outfit, and I love her body. I $~*$ the currently popular anerexic look, and I think it does a terrible disservice to America's youth."

(Go here (page 354) for the full commentary.)

Hmm...what did I say there that was so offensive?  Was it something off-color?  Was it something patently offensive?  I didn't think so, but apparently it was too offensive for our sensitive young culture.  What word was it...?

"HATE"

Yes, I could see how this word could be offensive.  The term "hate crime" for example, offends me deeply - not because of the word "hate", but the idea that a crime is more destructive based on the thinking behind it.  I'm sure the victim of a rape will be less traumatized by a rape committed out of love than one committed out of hate.  Yeah, that makes sense...

But in spite of the context, what exactly is offensive about the word "hate"?  Are we not free to love or hate who or what we choose in this country?  Is it really offensive to have somebody hate you?  If that is true, then there's a good chance that George Bush is the most offended man in America.  Would it be okay to censor all the Bush-haters in America?  I'm sure that wouldn't go over so well.

Do we even have a right not to be offended in this country?  Because if we do, then there can be no freedom of expression at all.  We will all need to cover our entire bodies from head to toe so that nobody can be offended by what you are wearing or by how long your hair is or by the look on your face.  Nobody can speak because there are very few things anyone can say without offending somebody.  Civilization will have to come to a standstill, because any action you take could potentially offend someone.

No, we do not have the right not to be offended.  Perhaps we have the right to protect our children from certain offensive material, but there must be a limit to such protections.  Why?  Because when you protect your children from everything, they cannot learn.  If they never get burned, they will never know to stay away from fire.  By the same token, by protecting them from ever getting offended, they will never learn how to deal with an offense.

I've thought and thought, and the most offensive thing I can think of to say that includes the word "hate" is, "I hate you!"  Guess how many times I've heard somebody say that to me?  I've even heard that from my child.  I don't like to hear it from my child, but I want to hear it if that is how she feels.  I could care less about hearing it from strangers.  The only response I can think of is, "Oh, that's interesting."  Why would I care if a total stranger hates me?  If you are not in my circle of family and friends, I couldn't care less what you think.

So what is the motivation behind the MTV censorship?  Perhaps they are trying to prevent a gang war between the Bloods and the Crips.  Ya think?  Maybe the rap culture is just too hyper-sensitive and every negative word erupts into violence.  Possibly...but I'm guessing it is just one thing: PC gone awry.

Immigration Reform, like no issue in recent memory, continues to alienate the electorate from the elected. Yet for all the public polls, blogs, and public outrage heard in the media, politicians don’t seem to be catching on. The agenda on immigration, driven primarily by President Bush, keeps moving ahead in spite of strong public opposition. Why won’t our elected officials listen?

The disconnect seems to be a result of "situation-normal" in Washington. Lawmakers don’t understand why legislation on immigration can’t be wrapped up like every other congressional product: full of pork and pork byproducts. The problem is that the American public is wise to the backroom workings of Washington, and this is one area where backroom deals will not be tolerated. Americans want something done without all the fluff and fanfare; they want something that works. The legislation currently under consideration is just what we’ve come to expect from congress, and therein lies the problem.

Bush and the congress continues to bull ahead; Bush and followers with a goal of appeasement, and liberals with ballot signs in their eyes from the millions of illegals that will join their camp when they become legal. But neither side is considering what is best for the current American citizen. What would be best is to secure our borders, PERIOD. Then we can discuss immigration reform – indeed, we need to. But we need to not wrap up border security with hundreds of pages of other extraneous garbage. Only then will the American people be satisfied.

Are you listening, Washington?

Right this very minute I am listening to Tom Sullivan (who is substituting for Rush) assert that we should not subsidize college educations because we are funding those who will be able to make the most money in America. I have heard a very similar argument from Michael Medved. To the both of you I want to ask, "How does it feel to be liberal?"

Yes, a reluctance to subsidize anyone but the poor is a liberal ideal. Liberals use it to assert that we should subsidize those who are "less fortunate" - or from my point of view, those who are a "drain on society". Yes, I said it! I don't see that distributing money to those who are not actively contributing to American society is the right thing for the government to do. It is, in fact, funding those who will be the downfall of America. It is like giving someone money knowing he will go out and buy a gun to shoot you with. Sure, that's a pretty extreme statement, and those who constantly drain society without contributing aren't using a gun. No, they are a much more slow and insidious danger than a gun.

So why should we fund those folks who are going to go out and make a lot of money for themselves? Well, how about because they are also likely to spend that money creating jobs? How about because people who are college educated are less likely to commit violent crimes? How about because it is an investment in America rather than charity? Do you guys really believe it is not the government's job to encourage the best attributes in its citizens? Personally, I do. It is part of preventing crime and encouraging people to better themselves that will benefit my selfish aims - a society that I can fully enjoy living in.

Want to stick to your liberal guns? Fine, how about this: Those who are really impoverished are highly unlikely to be able to afford college and are less likely to attend without a government subsidy. Does that satisfy your liberal thinking, Tom and Michael? You guys need to quit buying into the liberal arguments.

I had an interesting conversation Sunday with an acquaintance of mine about job satisfaction and career goals.  Having had many different jobs during my life, as well as having studied career development in college, I just assumed everyone had the same wisdom about job satisfaction that I did.  I was wrong.

 

I had forgotten that some people will graduate from college and hold maybe two or thee jobs from that time forward, and won’t have experienced a truly crappy job (and I use that term with affection).  I have had many crappy jobs, including ones that are normally crappy but because of the environment turned out to be loads of fun.  I highly enjoyed waiting tables, but of course that was at an even more loosely-run Bennigan’s.  I enjoyed working at a nursery; even though I had to carry bags of manure in the hot summer (talk about crappy!).  I hated working at an apartment rental office, mostly because the boss was a drunk who berated me in front of potential renters.  I hated doing vending service, mainly because there were days when it nearly killed me to lug half a ton of soda around on a cart for twelve hours.

 

But all jobs have their ups and downs.  Most jobs have their good days and bad days.  I am currently working in the information technology industry, and in general, I love my job.  But I definitely have my bad days.  There are days when I screw up or everything goes wrong.  There are days when people are just especially annoying.  There are days when the job doesn’t end because as soon as I get home from work there are half a dozen friends, relatives, and acquaintances that need help with their home computers.

 

But in spite of these bad days, I am not going to be changing jobs any time soon, and I’m certainly not changing careers.  Even the best jobs have bad days.  Even dream jobs have bad days.  With that in mind, I try to ask myself a number of questions before I start making plans to change jobs:

 

1)     Are there any good days, or do I just dread going into work every day?

2)     Overall, do I derive satisfaction from the main duties of my job?

3)     What are my career goals, and can I meet them with my current employer?

4)     How will changing jobs/careers affect my family and lifestyle?

5)     How can I find out more about the desired job/career without leaving my current position?

 

We all know that the animal that thinks the grass is greener on the other side of the fence is often mistaken.  New jobs that are seemingly “dream jobs” at “dream companies” often come with their own down-sides.  The gentleman I spoke to Sunday shared his thought with me that working with a smaller company might be more satisfying.  I explained to him that there are pros and cons of working for small companies, just like the big companies.  Big companies often have better benefits, a more flexible career path, and more opportunities for growth.  Small companies are often friendlier and more personal, give you more opportunity to “shine”, and can give you a better sense that you are valued.

 

With all these benefits you need to keep in mind that there are also disadvantages.  You usually trade one set of problems for another when you change jobs.  Sometimes you forget about your career path in preference to a great “job”.  But do you really want to be stuck at a single job, with no hope of advancement for the rest of your life?  For me, the most important aspect of any job is what it offers in terms of my career; whether it is learning, experience, or advancement.

 

Whatever you do, there are three cardinal rules when changing jobs or careers:

 

1)     Never quit your job until you have been officially hired elsewhere.

2)     Get as many job offers as possible before accepting any single job offer.

3)     Make sure you know everything you can about your new job before accepting the offer.

 

These three rules may seem like common sense, but I am always surprised at the number of people I know who have quit a job with nothing in reserve.  These are people with skills, but they don’t realize that skilled jobs take much longer to find than unskilled jobs.  Some employment experts say that for every $10,000 you expect to make, it will take you a month longer to find a job.  So those who want to make over $100k could be looking for a job for a whole year.  Can you or your family survive that long without an income?  Most can’t.

 

Nothing is worse than getting to a job and finding out it is ten times worse than the one you left.  It is imperative that you find out as much as you can about the company, the job description, the pros and cons of the job, the environment, and the people you will work with.  Don’t let dollar signs entice you to ignore these important job attributes because there are some jobs and work environments that aren’t worth any amount of money to deal with.

 

Don’t misunderstand me – I am not a “company man.”  I believe in the concept of self-promotion.  If a company offers me no advancement for my hard work, I will start looking for a job elsewhere that will.  I want my career to be constantly moving forward, and it is my responsibility to see that it does.  But I am mindful of continuity of my career.

 

Let me summarize it like this: when a potential employer looks at your resume and sees that you constantly advanced your career over the last ten years, he might be willing to overlook the fact that you changed employers seven times.  You just have to convince that employer that you did all that so that you could ultimately work for him or her!  But try to explain why you didn’t have a job for a year and a half, or why you worked at McDonalds in between accounting jobs, and you’re going to be facing a lot of rejection.

Sorry to do two tech posts right in a row, but I received an email scam that was too good to pass up commenting on.  It isn't all that unusual or anything, but once again I find myself surpised at the bold-faced attempt to scam money.  I won't go into detail here, but suffice to say I received an email telling me "My eBay account could be cancelled!" if I didn't verify my account information.

But not even Outlook was fooled since it ended up in my Junk Mail box where I usually delete things right away.  But then it occurred to me that not everyone has a Junk Mail box, and those that do might not have them set up to block these emails.  So with that in mind, please read the following article on eBay (note the actual eBay domain name, ensuring that this is not a spoof):

http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/spoof-email.html

Consider this article a good way to handle any email spoof, including those *supposedly from* other sites.

I have been in the information technology industry for about eleven years. But even with that said, I had to take a second look today when I received a brand-new scam email from overseas. The scam follows a pattern that would be familiar to any grifter (I know this because I used to be addicted to crime documentaries), but the length and complexity of the email is truly a wonder.

I have now received this scam twice from different people, and one of the insidious aspects of it is that neither was an exact duplicate of the other, but they followed an identical pattern. It goes something like this:

• - An overseas manager/bookkeeper contacts you that they have found a bank account containing millions of dollars.
• - The owner of the money died and there is no heir.
• - For whatever reason, the money cannot be touched unless it is deposited into a North American bank.
• - The scammer wants you to set up a bank account so they can transfer money into it, after which you get to keep a percentage.
• - You are urged to call an overseas number to coordinate the “exchange.” (this is the purpose of the scam, and will end up being a “gotcha” on your telephone bill).

(Read the full text of both here at my site: http://thinkitservices.com/articles/newscam.htm )

Now you’ve been educated on the latest scam, but what about the next one? Well, let me educate you further…

There are two rules that will serve you very well when it comes to email and internet scams, and they are:

1. 1)  Every email you get from anyone you don’t know will most likely bring you nothing but misery, so delete it immediately!
2. 2)  Half of the emails you get from people you know will bring you nothing but misery, so open them with extreme caution.

Now some might say this is paranoia. To that I say, so what? You cannot be too paranoid when it comes to email and the internet. Almost nothing is safe, but moreover, 95% of all gambling, porn, “free” game sites, and even anti-spyware sites exist to infect your computer with something. Very little is safe, and even commercial software can bring you misery.

So what is your best course of action? Be paranoid, back up your computer often, and put a competent computer geek’s name on speed dial!

I'm getting weary of the Imus controversy as I'm sure many others are, but I'd like to cap it off by making something clear about free speech. Some people have said, "Free speech isn't free." In the context in which these people mean it, that is true. There are certain things no American can say without legal consequences. But the Imus case isn't one where free speech was curtailed by law. Imus has every right to continue to refer to people as "nappy-headed ho's" every day of his life without the law stepping in to stop it.

However, free speech does not come without civil, occupational, or procedural consequences. So if you say “nappy-headed ho” on the public airwaves, Uncle Sam might give you a pass, but the black community might not. You might also find yourself fired and facing civil litigation. Why? Because those you speak about also have their right to free speech. People have a right not to be slandered or libeled (not all people, nor in every case, but generally).

So my final thought on this is that in spite of my feelings on the fairness of the results, and in spite of my feelings on the hypocrisy of certain black “leaders,” I am still proud of the fact that in America people are able to say rude, crude, and hurtful things without being dragged off to prison or worse. We do live in a land of freedom – but certain freedoms do not come without consequences.

I don't live in New York and I don't have any kind of satellite radio, but from everything I've heard, Don Imus is not funny or entertaining.  Based on his surliness, I tend to think I wouldn't like him personally either.  But God help me, I love free speech!

Now I really can't find any fault in the handling of the Imus affair.  Don Imus said something offensive, and the free market handled it.  I also love the free market!  You might want to punch Jackson and Sharpton in the neck for incendiary behavior, but others have handily addressed that issue and I don't care to restate the obvious.

I just want to draw a clear demarkation on the issue of free speech.  I defend Imus's right to make ignorant and racist comments, though I won't give him a pass on the professional consequences.  So what if they fire the guy?  That is how our capitalist economy works, my friends!

But be warned - cross the line of legally curtailing free speech, and we are going to have a problem.  I can't think of an issue that is more sacred to me than my right to say the wrong thing.  Why is it sacred?  Because the minute you make it a crime to speak out against injustice, you can no longer ensure justice.  You can no longer protest a rogue government.  You can no longer defend your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is my warning: let the free market handle this one.  Imus is a jerk and he will get what is coming to him without any litigation.  But let's not bring the law into play because you might be the next jerk on the gallows.

It is time to get realistic, people!  Wherever you may stand on global warming, does anyone really believe the world is facing imminent destruction from global climate change in our lifetime? 

Oh no wait - this is only going to affect the poorest nations at first.  Hmm...this is starting to sound more like a liberal issue than a climate issue.  This is the most over-hyped, over-politicized issue of our day.  Recognize it for what it is - liberal fear-mongering for political gain.

And for those of you who believe global warming is caused solely by humans, I suggest you visit: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This site is about science, not politics.  Enjoy!