Looking back over the days posts, I have been spending a fair amount of time on Obama. So lets switch to one of my other favorite subjects:

It seems that supporting our troops, our country, and our freedom has become so blah in hollywood. It would be much better to just support the Terrorists.

This from the Washington Post:

On Sunday night, the goody with el primo placement — right near the collars of Best Actress nominee Julie Christie and two-time winner Paul Haggis — was an orange ribbon. A cheap, ugly, dear God we thought the age of lapel-activism (AIDS, peace, veterans, breasts) was over ribbon. Or an orange bracelet, a cheap, ugly, when will this rubber fetish quit livingstrong — bracelet. Inscribed with Torture + Silence = Complicity.

These represent the orange jumpsuits worn by Guantanamo prisoners, and call for the closing of the prison, and the cessation of a range of controversial U.S. behaviors.

Along with the truism of “Power Corrupts” it seems we need to add “Fame Dements”. Hollywood is so far out of touch with reality, it is amazing the even live in the same world we do. They hide beneath the very freedom American servicemen die to protect. In what alternate reality is that sane? It could only be that their lives are so hallow and meaningless that they are looking for something, anything to latch onto. The more bizarre and extreme the better.

Get out Hollywood - take your money and your delusions to Iran or Syria. I am sure you will find them more tolerant of your insanity.

Also Reporting:
Wizbang

A nice little video from You Tube.

And of course we all remember the The Democratic Rpublic of Congo Relief, Security, and Diplomacy Promotion Act of 2006. Certainly.

H/T to HotAir.

No, of course it is not real, but it is funny. H/T to however penned it first, it came to me in e-mail without credit.

My fellow Identity-Americans.

As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for their… well, support.

Your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor’s relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.

I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.

I would also like to thank the Kennedy’s for coming out in support of me. There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a teenage girl.
And I’m not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively.

And I’d like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support. Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.

Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement, but because I make people feel good. Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt. I say things that sound meaningful, but don’t really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning. If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them. Americans are tired of thinking. It’s time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart. So when you go to vote in the primaries, remember don’t think, just do.

And do it for me.

Thank You.
Barack Hussein Obama

Chris Hoofnagle of the University of California at Berkly penned a very interesting report which seeks to Measure identify theft by institution. Specifically Chris used the Freedom of Information act to obtain data from the FTC which was then used to identify the institution or institutions where the identity thieves either establish fraudulent account or impacted existing accounts.

Basically, how good is your bank at protecting you?

I highly recomend a review of the report, because some of the data does need to be taken with a gain of sand. First the sorce data covers only 3 months, and not consecutive months, in 2006. Secondly, the bigger banks take the brunt of the conclusions from the data. While Chris has appropriately factored for size, based on incidents per $billion in deposits, he has not (and, to be fair, could not) balance for name or number of users. The biggest bank naturally draws the attention from the bad guys.

The following is the breakdown per bank directly from Chris’ report:

The most interesting point, which Chris makes rather firmly, is that the 25 institutions (and this is not just banks, but also service providers and retail outlets) account for just under 50% of all identity thefts — at least for those three months in 2006. The top 5 account for almost 1 out of ever 4 events.

It would be very hard to stay away from the top 25 institutions, as all the major banks and major service providers are accounted for here. None the less there is a clear message that not all providers are policing incidents of identity theft equally.

HSBC is the worst with 21.3 incidents per billion in deposits. They are also the 9th largest, and all of those above them in size perform better. Still, the largest institution, Bank of America, has 17.6 incidents per billion in deposits. And the best among the big banks? Wachovia Bank - they only had 4.9 incidents per billion in deposits are all also the 4th largest institution on the list.

So take it with a grain of salt - but I am not sure I would keep my business with HSBC, Bank of America, or Washington Mutual.

Also reporting:
Concurring Opinions

I picked up the following from the local Houston Chronicle - seems a bit silly to me.

The government pulls people suspected of being here illegally out of airplane lines and then pays to detain, prosecute and deport them to the country they were headed to in the first place.

[…]

“What’s silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn’t be here,” said Houston’s Federal Public Defender Marjorie Meyers. “It’s not cost-effective.”

Why not just close the door on them on them when they are gone? Save my tax Money. But the Houston U.S. Attorney Don Gabrielle seems to have another opinion:

Not true, says Houston’s U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle.

The people they are prosecuting are repeat violators of U.S. immigration laws and it’s not only necessary, but also efficient, to stop them and prosecute them, he said.

“We had already expended some time, effort and money before to institute deportation,” DeGabrielle said.

To allow them to come back into the country without proper permission and then just let them leave would minimize what the government is trying to accomplish, he said.

“We feel it’s definitely worth the resources to hold these people accountable,” DeGabrielle said.

I can, to some extent, understand the point of view. Yet I would still prefer to see my tax money spent keeping them out in the first place. The only potentially positive note is that entering illegally is a felony, and will stop them from every getting permission to immigrate here to the US.

Also Reporting:
Wizbang

From the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Author and conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. has died at age 82.
His assistant Linda Bridges says Buckley died Wednesday morning at his home in Stamford, Conn.
Buckley became famous for his intellectual political writings in his magazine, the National Review.

Rest in Peace Mr. Buckley.

Also Reporting:
OTB
Townhall.com
Wizbang
Hot Air
Michelle Malkin
Stop The ACLU

This is rich, but not unexpected. Form the Associated Press:

President Omar al-Bashir said Wednesday that he would bar Danes from Sudan and told tens of thousands of people at a government-backed rally that the Muslim world should boycott Denmark because of a reprinted cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

“We urge all Muslims around the world to boycott Danish commodities, goods, companies, institutions, organizations and personalities,” al-Bashir told the crowd outside the Republic Palace in downtown Khartoum.

“Down, down, Denmark!” shouted the crowd. Al-Bashir vowed that “not a single Danish foot will from now on desecrate the land of Sudan.”

Who wants to go to Sudan anyway? I can’t imagine that Sudan is a hot Danish tourist spot, nor that they are a market for Danish goods.

To refresh your memory, this is all a result of the Danish newspapers reprinting Muhammad cartoons. You can read my post on it here.

There is a bit of Irony here, as there always is in these cases:

First, most of the Danes that are in Sudan are there with humanitarian aid organizations, or with the UN peacekeeping forces.

It was not clear whether al-Bashir planned to act on his rhetoric and force out the hundreds of Danes who work in Sudan, most in aid organizations, with a dozen in the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Sudan.

Secondly, Sudan is one of the largest recipients of Danish aid.

But Sudan is one of the largest recipients of Danish aid and Danish aid groups that operate there include the Danish Refugee Council and the Danish Red Cross, which runs large projects to alleviate suffering in the western Darfur region.

Sudan received $26 million in Danish aid in 2006 and a $100 million humanitarian and reconstruction package is planned through 2009.

So I will be looking out for any Danish goods I can buy. Not that I have the least idea on what they export. In any event I guess a reprint of my favorite cartoon is in order.

Also Reporting:
Michelle Malkin

I guess Greenpeace didn’t hear the news. This from Reuters:

First they scaled the roof of Parliament:

Protesters scaled the roof of Britain’s parliament in a major security breach on Wednesday and threatened further direct action against government plans to expand London’s Heathrow airport.

Environmental protesters from the “Plane Stupid” group scaled the Houses of Parliament to mark the end of a public consultation period on a third runway and sixth terminal at what is already the world’s busiest international airport.

“NO THIRD RUNWAY,” read one of the banners they unfurled and hung down the side of the building.

Then they penetrated Heathrow’s security and hung another banner on the tail of a jet:

The demonstration followed another serious breach on Monday when Greenpeace activists penetrated Heathrow’s own security to climb on an aircraft and wrap a banner around its tail plane.

Why, you may ask, is Greenpeace so interested in blocking another runway at Heathrow?

Why, global Warming of course.

But environmental groups have joined forces with angry local residents, saying roughly doubling the number of flights from Britain’s busiest air hub would make a mockery of government pledges to reduce carbon emissions to tackle global warming.

I have already posted on the record snows over North America, Siberia, Mongolia, and China; the record low temperatures, the return of the ice caps, and the thickening of the Arctic Sea Ice. Unfortunately, Greenpeace must not be paying attention.

Who knows, perhaps we should build even more runways to combat the threatening of a new ice age!

Forbes is calling it, rightly, “The Mother of all EU Fines”:

The latest episode in Microsoft’s tempestuous relationship with the European Competition Commission ended with a bang Wednesday, as Commissioner Neelie Kroes slapped down an 899 million euro ($1.35 billion) fine on the company for not completely complying with an antitrust ruling that dated back to 2004. It is by far the largest EU fine ever imposed on a company.

Wow - I cannot even imagine that much money. That is a price tag that will pain even the cash rich Microsoft.

Here is the reasoning behind the EU’s decision:

The fine, which Microsoft will probably pay, is entirely retrospective, relating to a period of “non-compliance” before Oct. 22, 2007. It relates to the “unreasonable prices” the Commission is claiming Microsoft charged, before that date, to other software developers for access to documents that explained how they could create software that interfaced with Microsoft servers.

Between June 21, 2006, when that information was made available, and Oct. 21, 2007, Microsoft had charged software developers royalties of 0.7% on the revenues of their products that were developed using protocols the software giant had provided.

After that date, Microsoft agreed to reduce the rate to 0.4%, following directives from the Commission to charge a more “reasonable” rate. (See: “EU’s Hard Line Cows Microsoft”) But it probably knew that fines were ahead for the prior period, when it had charged a higher rate.

Microsoft is heading the same way as UK telecom giant BT. They will soon be put into a regulatory box where they are not permitted to compete with the competition. The EU needs to seriously consider these business practices before harming more businesses.

Earlier this week I wrote about the endorsement Obama received from the National of Islam, specifically Louis Farrakhan.

Well, it seems that Obama was, as I predicted, not enthused by the endorsement.

Obama was asked a fairly direct question from Russert (The first of the night, I might add):

“Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?”

Rather than a simple and straightforward “No” he gave the following wordy reply:

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”

It seems to me that he was trying to both distance himself from the Farrakhan’s view, but not from his support. A sidestep that was not a well executed as it should have been.

Here is the video, courtesy of YouTube:

I do have to give Tim Russett some credit here. After handling Obama with kit gloves most of the night, he did hit him pretty hard on this issue. To bad he couldn’t have shown some of that forcefulness on matter than actually matter.

I know, it is a border line issue, and some would even call it inappropriate to spend time on it. However, it is important to know the types of extreme individuals who are landing on Obama’s doorstep. Want it or not, support it or not, you do not draw in people like Farrakhan unless they see you as a way to advance their agenda.

Also Reporting:
OTB