Sunday, February 26, 2006

Captured Al Qaeda Documents: The Oil Spot Strategy


Austin Bay is analyzing captured and declassified Al Qaeda communications. One interesting conclusion: the Jihadists wish to assassinate Saudi Arabia's leadership in order to destabilize the country and set the stage for a truly hardline government:

An oil spot strategy must be pursued against Saudi Arabia, with the goal of expanding the circle of jihad... Expanding the circle of jihad horizontally and vertically via assassinating some of the leaders of disbelief in the system; this is called (the oil spot).


Other tidbits relate to waging information warfare:

...Al-Qa’ida should emulate Hamas and have the statements of “martyrs” videotaped prior to their operations. If the efforts of martyrs from the Peninsula were publicized, this would have a tremendous impact on recruitment in Saudi Arabia...

...If we go back a little (to the events in Somalia) and carefully think of this situation, we will recognize the extent at which we fell short in the informational and political efforts. We did not invest these events politically to serve the jihad program. Most of the people inside [the country] are unaware of the great effort the mujahidin made against the American forces...


Somalia. How many terrorists were inspired by the egregious example of Clintonian statesmanship in Mogadishu? The answer: way too many. Read it all.

Austin Bay: The Al Qaeda Documents - The Oil Spot Strategy

The Personal Goals of Benjamin Franklin

Franklin -- certainly one of the primary instigators for American independence from the British Crown -- was also a legendary inventor, entrepreneur, writer, and publisher. In order to structure his behavior, he kept a daily chart of goals and placed a dot next to each one he achieved. He did so for nearly his entire life...

read more

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Another Network Neutrality Battle: Email


The latest scheme to violate Internet neutrality came in the form of an AOL and Yahoo announcement last month. The two content providers announced a service that would give bulk emailers the option to pay for guaranteed delivery of their messages. This approach -- called "certified delivery" -- is as much a violation of net neutrality as the carriers' bizarre schemes.

My contention is that any strategy that partitions the Internet on a "pay-to-play" basis is destined for ignominious failure.

Legitimate businesses that simply wish to use email to communicate with clients will find it difficult to cost-justify. Consider American Express, which may want to notify customers that annual account summaries are available. Will Amex really be capable of generating a business case -- with a per-email expenditure -- for this type of notification? I doubt it.

How about a newsletter company that depends heavily on email like IMN? This type of company drives sophisticated email marketing programs for large organizations that need to stay in close contact with their customers. With margins already thin, IMN would probably be forced to lift prices or create service tiers for their clients, giving them the option of the added expense.

Which businesses would be certain to pay for email? Probably only those that truly qualify as spammers, the returns for which could probably cost-justify the mailing expense. This will be the case for the same reason that telemarketing firms still do outbound cold calls: it pays, despite the do-not-call list and caller-ID.

Haven't we been through all of this before? NewsFactor mentions the ill-fated SenderID initiative:

Meng Weng Wong, CTO of the Karmasphere.com start-up, also is attacking the problem but believes the answer is an open reputation exchange... Wong previously [helped create] SenderID, a system designed to verify the domain of e-mail senders. SenderID has been invaded by spammers... "I am working on building an open reputation network that makes it very easy for people in the reputation and accreditation industry to share or sell their data... We need to get back to a world where I can e-mail a stranger and they can e-mail me and the mail gets through, and where I don't have to pay for that..."


The bottom line: I think it likely that the pay-to-play email model will result in more spam in user in-boxes, not less. And it's yet another reason that firms like AOL and Yahoo need to do much better scenario modeling. Unless, of course, they figure they can make plenty of cash charging for spam. In which case, they're destined to lose their customers anyhow.

NewsFactor: Certified Email draws Mixed Reactions

SCO battles IBM and Novell


Thomas Carey -- a partner at the law firm of Bromberg & Sunstein -- weighs in with some truly choice quotes regarding the merits of SCO's Linux lawsuits. His basic message: IT leaders shouldn't worry a bit about SCO Group's latest skirmishes against IBM and Novell.

In the interview, he explains why SCO's case is akin to going into a gun battle with a clip full of blanks:

Q: What are the implications of SCO's suit against Novell for Novell/SuSE customers?

Carey: ...SCO's lawsuit is a lost cause. The implications for Linux users are rather like the implications for passengers on an ocean liner of a seagull diving into the water nearby. A physicist might be able to measure the perturbation, but the passenger feels nothing.

Q: SCO went after, with lawsuits, Linux customers before. Do you foresee this happening again?

Carey: This might happen again. Hitler fought World War II until the Allies had nearly overrun his bunker. As long as investors are willing to provide the cash, SCO will sue because that is their business model.


You gotta love that.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Google Pages - Review

The super-techies at Google have introduced their online page creation service and HTML editor. It's called "Pages" and I managed to get in before registrations were closed. I think it's outstanding -- certainly not a full-fledged editor along the lines of Dreamweaver or Frontpage -- but more than enough for typical newbie content creators. My current page created using the technology is located here.

read more 

Yahoo's PHP Resources

Yahoo has a page specifically dedicated to implementing Yahoo services via PHP. An example: the geocoding service lets you find the specific latitude and longitude for an address. This would be useful in, say, a web app that displays points on a mapping image or for computing distances... way cool.

read more 

Top 7 PHP Security Blunders

Lots of PHP's features make it easy (too easy?) to use. New programmers -- especially to the web world -- can create insidious security holes in their web applications. Popular security mailing lists teem with notes of flaws identified in PHP applications, but PHP can be as secure as any other language once you understand the basic types of flaws PHP applications tend to exhibit.

read more 

Thursday, February 23, 2006

New GMail Feature: Smart Reply

It appears Google is getting ever closer to supporting outsourced email services for companies. A few weeks ago, of course, we heard about GMail for Domains -- a possible service that would be offered to small- and medium-sized enterprise -- in an ASP model.

Now the GMail engineers have added a "smart reply" feature. When you reply to a message that was sent to an email address other than gmail.com, it is now smart enough to use that address as the from-address when replying...

read more

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Network Neutrality: So Simple Even the Times Gets It


It's so simple -- the world's need for Internet neutrality, that is -- even the New York Times gets it:

In its current form, Internet service operates in the same nondiscriminatory way as phone service. When someone calls your home, the telephone company puts through the call without regard to who is calling. In the same way, Internet service providers let Web sites operated by eBay, CNN or any other company send information to you on an equal footing. But perhaps not for long. It has occurred to the service providers that the Web sites their users visit could be a rich new revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee for using the Internet connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to pay when customers download a video?

...If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those corporations' profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices, would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They also might be able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet telephony, that compete with their own business interests.


Let me repeat my opening statement: even the New York Times gets it. And they haven't even arrived at the truly malevolent, worst-case scenarios.

BellWest Network Neutrality
Another fantastic "deal" from BellWest

Imagine that our favorite RBOC -- BellWest -- wants to get into the search-engine business. Nothing like capturing market share from Google to pump up the stock price, right? In a world without network neutrality, nothing prevents BellWest from intentionally slowing search results from Google and Yahoo while delivering their own search results at blazing speeds.

Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's not. The diabolical new hardware that Cisco and other vendors are hawking to the carriers appears expressly designed for this purpose.

The carriers will tell you that they're just interested in prioritizing content from content providers who've ponied up additional fees: say, video feeds from Netflix. But what they really may be after is utter control of the content flowing through their pipes. After all, if Netflix is successful in renting out videos over the net, why wouldn't BellWest eventually create their own video service and cut out third-party video providers altogether?

This same model could extend to any online business. The carriers could conceivably enter any proven online venue by blocking or delaying content from competitors and assuring only their home-grown packets got through with acceptable performance.

And if you don't think this is what the carriers are truly after, I'd ask you to do two bits of research. First, read the synopsis of the marketing literature for Cisco's Service Exchange Framework (SEF). Then, get an answer from the carriers on these three simple questions related to their use of this hardware. What you find won't be comforting, I can assure you.

The carriers will also tell you that prioritization (QoS - or quality-of-service) is needed to deliver high-quality streaming content to the residential "last mile." But that argument, too, appears to be bunkum. Recent experiences with the new, new high-speed backbone called Internet2 provdes that a multitrack network is unnecessary to assure quality of service. In other words, "best effort" packet delivery -- the way the Internet works today -- is quite good enough, thank you.

PBS' Robert X. Cringely talked to one of the best sources of networking wisdom regarding this very topic. He came away with a memorable sound bite:

I asked Bob Kahn, the father of TCP/IP, and he made the point that the Internet is a Best Effort network and if you change that, well, you no longer have the Internet.


Pree-cisely.

The funny thing is that the carriers -- the big-wig SBC/AT&T execs, for instance -- can't keep from blabbing about what they're really up to. They could have made innocuous statements about prioritization and remained circumspect about their true intentions. Instead, top execs like SBC's CEO Ed Whitacre had their moments in the sun, declaring war on content providers: "...for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

Ahem. Let's ignore the fact that all of those providers ante up plenty each month to pay for their various giant Internet pipes. What Whitacre is talking about seems to me nothing less than "a packet protection racket". One can imagine him sitting like Don Corleone, advising his Consigliere: "Google don't wanna pay us? Thas' okay. Their packets could run into a little... trouble... along the way."

Even the highly compensated telco lobbying groups haven't shied away from glimpses into their desired end-state. NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow blurted out this gem recently:

Let me be clear: NCTA's members have not, and will not, block the ability of their high-speed Internet service customers to access any lawful content, application, or services available over the public Internet... This commitment should be consistent with tiers and terms of a customer's service plan.


Translation: you want VoIP or peer-to-peer, better pay the tax for the extra tiers of IP capability. Never mind that all of this would work fine in the current democratized Internet... our current state of network neutrality. No, the carriers want to exact new taxes for certain kinds of IP traffic, that much is clear. So much for innovations like Skype and Gnutella.

Yes, I know, it's a brain-damaged strategy -- based on a business case that has no chance of success in the real world. But it's precisely what you'd expect from unreformed monopolists who fear competing where the real action is: in the application space, at layers 4-7. Think Google, Digg, Vonage, and countless other application providers who have created real value using the commoditized world of IP plumbing.

Somehow I don't see much value being created by allowing carriers to erect tollbooths all over the Internet. I see a lot of value destruction -- and a dearth of innovation -- instead. And I'm not the only one. Stanford Law School's Barbara Van Schewick issued an amazingly detailed analysis of network neutrality regulation. Her conclusion?

The analysis shows that calls for network neutrality regulation are justified: In the absence of network neutrality regulation, there is a real threat that network providers will discriminate against independent producers of applications, content or portals or exclude them from their network. This threat reduces the amount of innovation in the markets for applications, content and portals at significant costs to society... increasing the amount of application-level innovation through network neutrality regulation is more important than the costs associated with it.


Ready to get involved? Click here to send a message to the carriers and Congress. Network neutrality is a fundamental principle of a successful, Democratic Internet. And there's no arguing that.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996


Mobile phoneTwo Congressional committees are currently working on draft legislation that would revamp the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The current posture of the FCC is to ensure network neutrality: that is, to guarantee that telecommunications providers will not filter, block, delay, or impede certain types of packets over other types.

That, however, could change with the rewritten version of the Act.

Less than two years ago, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps pointed out the dangers related to killing off network neutrality:

[The current] internet may not be the one that we know in the future... Entrenched interests are already jockeying to constrain the openness that has been the internet's defining hallmark. They are lobbying the FCC to aide and abet them. They claim all they are advocating is a deregulated environment, where the market can reign supreme. But, in reality, they are seeking government help to allow a few companies to turn the internet from a place of competition and innovation, into an oligopoly.

Power over the internet would reside with the network owners, with a huge choke point, constrain consumer choices, limit sources of news and information and entertainment, undermine competitors, and quash disruptive new technologies... They can talk competition all they want, but the race to combine distribution and content spell economic constraint here, just as clearly as they did when John D. Rockefeller married distribution to his product... We cannot afford to buy into this vision. If we do, we will wind up one day, looking back, shaking our heads, and wondering whatever happened to that open, dynamic, liberating, and promising internet that once we knew...


Unfortunately, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin hasn't been quite as visionary. He's expressed an unwillingness to adopt rules to limit anti-competitive behavior, ostensibly because there's been no evidence of a problem thus far.

Martin obviously hasn't reviewed the insidious new hardware that Cisco and other vendors are hawking to the carriers. This new infrastructure is designed with one thing in mind: to monitor, filter, cap, and limit what consumers can do.

Using this new hardware, our favorite RBOC -- BellWest -- could easily prevent consumers from trying Vonage's Voice-over-IP (VoIP) offering.

Think that couldn't happen? It's already starting. Vonage head Jeffrey Citron indicates that his company's service has already been targeted by carriers on several occasions. And his conversations with telco execs aren't exactly promising: "Major phone company executives seem to suggest that our service isn't going to work as well if we don't pay them additional fees."

And if we examine new broadband service contracts, it gets even more obvious. Verizon Wireless' Broadband Access contract reportedly stipulates some rather onerous terms:

Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, without limitation, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, telemetry applications, automated functions or any other machine-to-machine applications [Ed: peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing likely falls into this category], (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines [Ed: Voice-over-IP (VoIP)] or dedicated data connection...


Walter McCormick, the head of telco lobbying group USTA, says all of the right things:

...We will not block, impair, or degrade content, applications or services... That is the plainest and most direct way I know to address concerns.


However, as Ronald Reagan used to say: Trust... but verify.

When even the FCC Commissioners are paranoid about the power the carriers could hold over the Internet, it's certainly time for us to be equally paranoid. Get involved by signing a petition that business and Congressional leaders will see. And help get the message out: we need network neutrality written into law to ensure the carriers keep the Internet open and Democratic.

Monday, February 20, 2006

The Iraqi Survey Group: Connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda


The American Thinker's Ray Robison has been doing yeoman's work tracking Iraqi Government documents captured by the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). How will the mediacrats spin this news? That is, if they bother to report it at all, the odds of which are slightly less than Michael Moore winning a gold in Olympic ice-dancing. Oh, and Robison was actually in Iraq serving as a contractor for the DIA, working with the ISG. So he knows whereof he speaks.

...On February 26th, 1993 the... World Trade Center was attacked by al-Qaeda and [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] EIJ (really two organizations that cooperated in 1993 and eventually merged).

A month later an official from EIJ was meeting with Saddam in Baghdad.

We have a document showing Saddam authorizing the IIS to “provide technical support” to the EIJ, and by extension, al-Qaeda.

And then al-Qaeda and the EIJ attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001 led by an Egyptian Jihadist, Mohammed Atta.

Now you have proof Saddam provided support to the EIJ and by extension al-Qaeda, both of which attacked us on 9/11...

Meet your new Palestinian Government!


The New York Post's Uri Dan introduces us to the new Palestinian bureaucracy. Not exactly Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, to be sure:

Meet the newest members of the Palestinian government: a terrorist who tried to poison Jerusalem's water supply, a murderer serving life in prison and the war-mongering mother of three suicide killers.

Palestine's new Hamas-led rulers — who include a dozen parliamentarians currently jailed for violence against Israel — reject peaceful negotiation as a way to achieve a Palestinian state.

"Jihad comes ahead of everything, including my feelings as a mother," said Mariam Farhat, 56, a new member of parliament from Gaza — and the mother of three sons who died on suicide missions against Israel...

Bonfire of the Inanities


I smell burning. It must be the fuming of the mediacrats -- because the public just doesn't seem to care a whit about Cheney-Shotgun-Halliburton-Gate (sorry... had to throw in Halliburton for old time's sake). CFP's John Burtis performs the coup de grace  on the story:

...When Harry Whittington strode out of the Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, wearing a blazer, a crisp white shirt and a smile, as well as a bruise and a few small scabs, to face the media last Thursday, the whole artful and painfully constructed edifice of the liberal communications industry and their Democratic hand maidens came crashing down around them.

With Harry walking into the daylight under his own power, alone, sans wheelchair, without an iron lung, without a company of white suited orderlies and paramedics to brace him, with nary an IV bottle and hose in view, without sunglasses, without constant medical attention, without a single tremor or palsied movement, without a give-away halt to his gait, with not a single visible bandage in sight, with his hair combed perfectly, the jig was up on all of the liberal media’s monkey business and clowning around.

It also became painfully obvious, even for the most backward and ill educated red state rube, that the daily death watch was over, that the high stakes mortality pool had come to an end, that the heart attack which was expected to claim the life of Mr. Whittington was firmly relegated to the past and that the high-temperature media frenzy was instantly put on ice. And, further, that this particular instrument of destruction - this latest and greatest, almost nuclear, weapon, which had fallen into the hands of the Democrats and their media tools courtesy of the Vice President, who appears to be so heedless of their power and influence that he tended to his friend before he deigned to inform them, the loyal liberal protectors and Myrmidons of progressive thought - was spent...


Have to mention, as well, that The Genius -- Mark Steyn -- weighed in with his take. It truly is the last word on the affair:

Fortunately, the Washington Post had that wise old bird David Ignatius to put it in the proper historical context: "This incident," he mused, "reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969."

Hmm. Let's see. On the one hand, the guy leaves the gal at the bottom of the river struggling for breath pressed up against the window in some small air pocket while he pulls himself out of the briny, staggers home, sleeps it off and saunters in to inform the cops the following day that, oh yeah, there was some broad down there. And, on the other hand, the guy calls 911, has the other fellow taken to the hospital, lets the sheriff know promptly but neglects to fax David Gregory's make-up girl!

One can only hope others agree with Ignatius' insightful analogy, and that the reprehensible Cheney will be hounded from public life the way Kennedy was all those years ago. One would hate to think folks would just let it slide and three decades from now this Cheney guy will be sitting on some committee picking Supreme Court justices and whatnot...

Art Spiegelman suddenly sounds like a Conservative


Noted liberal Art Spiegelman (author of "Maus") has a surprisingly candid -- and rational -- assessment of the cartoon debacle (hat tip: Nation):

This notion that the images can just be described leaves me firmly on the side of showing images. The banal quality of the cartoons that gave insult is hard to believe until they are seen. We live in a culture where images rule, and it's as big a divide as the secular/religious divide--the picture/word divide.

The public has been infantilized by the press. It's escalated to the point where it's moot whether one should reprint these pictures or not because now to do it puts you firmly on the side of the libeler, the defamer. And yet, it seems to me that to write about this without access to the pictures is an absurdity. The answer to speech, in my religion, is more speech, a lot of yakking--and a lot of drawing. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, very often it requires 2,000 words more to talk about the picture, but you can't replace that thousand words with another thousand words.

If The Nation and the New York Times had simply said, "We're scared s***less," I could take that. I'm not only a cartoonist--I'm a physical coward.

Wi-Fi for Everyone


FON is an interesting new service that creates an ad hoc, global Wi-Fi access network. Not without its challenges (using it could violate your broadband terms of service), FON nonetheless is promising in many respects:

How broadband access providers respond to this challenge – whether they put up roadblocks or join the party – could be the next huge issue in multimedia communication and the net neutrality issue. A group of investors that have injected $21.7 million into the fledgling company includes Google Inc., Index Ventures, Sequoia Capital LLC and Skype Technologies S.A. And the recent additions to the board of directors are a roster of players who have already been pushing the envelope of Internet communication...

Sunday, February 19, 2006

The End of the Internet?


BellWest Network Neutrality
Another fantastic "deal" from BellWest

I've devoted most of the past week's blog posts to cover the battle raging over "network neutrality." Not to put too serious of a face on it, but the future of the Internet is at risk if network neutrality is permitted to die.

The term refers to the concept that telephone companies, cable providers, and other carriers should not inspect, filter, delay or otherwise discriminate against different types of Internet traffic. That's how the Internet works today. But it may not be how the Internet works tomorrow, if the carriers get their way.

The advertisement at right -- a hypothetical telco ad from the future -- implies what might be in the cards for consumers if network neutrality is killed off. In other words, customers might only get to run applications approved by the carriers. Not only would that result in dramatically higher costs for consumers and businesses, but many speculate it would seriously hamper innovation. In my first blog post on the topic, I described what it might mean to consumers. Example: say our friendly RBOC BellWest creates their own search engine. To improve its relative performance, they intentionally delay search results from Google, Yahoo, and MSN. Sound crazy? The network hardware vendors don't seem to think so.

What's the Evidence?


In my second post on the topic, I described the hardware Cisco and other networking vendors are hawking to the carriers. This hardware is designed to analyze, filter, meter, and/or otherwise meddle with Internet traffic to financially benefit the carriers.

In my third post, I took on the argument that the carriers have offered regarding their need to prioritize traffic. They contend that prioritization is required in order to deliver high-quality voice and HDTV streams to consumers. But is that argument valid? Recent experiences with the new network backbone called "Internet2" indicate that, indeed, it is not. In fact, it appears that "best effort" packet delivery over high-speed networks results in more than acceptable performance for HDTV streams and other rich content.

In my fourth post, I addressed what I believe is the carriers' flawed business case. Let's say that the carriers actually pull off a coup and kill network neutrality in order to hatch their new business models. In doing so, they carefully meter and filter customer behavior. My assertion is that -- as the Chinese government has discovered -- customers' Internet usage is difficult, if not impossible, to police. Software platforms like Tor, SSL VPNs, and OpenVPN render packet inspection and filtering well nigh impossible.

Most recently, I asked three simple questions that the carriers should answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. Hopefully, someone at the FCC will require the carriers to answer these questions before pulling the plug on network neutrality.

Here's how to help preserve network neutrality


Interested in helping to preserve a free Internet? Get involved by signing a petition that business and Congressional leaders will see. And get the message out.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Network neutrality: Three Simple Questions...


The term "network neutrality" refers to the concept that telcos, cable providers, and other carriers should not inspect, filter, delay or otherwise discriminate against Internet traffic. That's how the Internet works today. And it may not be how the Internet works tomorrow, if the carriers get their way.

BellSouth, for example, has argued against regulations that would guarantee network neutrality:

"What BellSouth is talking about in the context of net neutrality is bigger, better, faster internet -- the internet of the future," said Bennett Ross, general counsel for BellSouth's Washington office. "We see there are only two really principals and questions that have to be addressed. ... Namely is this an area which the government should regulate? And if the government is going to regulate what are those regulations going to look like?"


Bigger, faster, and better? Wow! Who wouldn't want that?

Well, technology companies and civil libertarians for starters. They contend that the carriers are up to no good and they provide some alarming scenarios. The Nation's Jeff Chester, for instance, wrote:

...[the] largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.


So who's right? Are the carriers doing what's best for us? Or for them?

Three Simple Questions


Cisco is pitching new and ominous hardware that can help filter, monitor, and control packet flow for carriers. Because of this, I have crafted three simple questions that the carriers should be required to answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. They are as follows:

The number 1Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

The number 2Will you offer tiered (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

The number 3Will you monitor and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any other class of communication by customers?

I believe the carriers should be forced to answer these three questions honestly and directly.

If any of these questions are answered affirmatively, the carriers should be regulated accordingly. If the carriers refuse to answer, they should likewise be regulated.

Either way, it's a Losing Strategy


In the unlikely event that the carriers do kill off network neutrality, it's still a profoundly weak strategy for their businesses. As I pointed out a few days ago, a wide range of technological solutions exist to defy packet inspection and filtering. These solutions will continue to evolve; we can expect them to be incorporated into default installations of Internet clients (e.g., the Firefox browser) to make them easier for the general public to use.

The bottom line is that either outcome is bad business for the carriers. The concept that appears to be foreign to the telcos and cable companies is simple: add value, don't subtract it.

Click here to send a message to the carriers and Congress. Network neutrality is a fundamental principle of a successful Internet. And there's no arguing that.

The Algerian Plague


Last month, Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the Weekly Standard, called out out some interesting ties between Saddam's regime and Islamic terrorist groups. One group -- GPSC -- is well-known to counter-terror outfits worldwide. Caution: don't expect to see any of this documented in your local newspaper because it runs counter to the CNN/Charlie Rangel meme that "Bush lied" and "there were no WMDs".

THE REVELATION that Saddam Hussein's Iraq trained thousands of Islamic terrorists has important ramifications for European counterterrorism efforts... last week, Spain arrested 20 suspected terrorists who are alleged to have been recruiting and funding suicide bombers to send to Iraq...

In November 2005, Italian authorities arrested three Algerians affiliated with the group. Authorities had been eavesdropping on the suspects... the intercepts revealed that the Algerians were discussing plans to kill "at least 10,000 people" and the possibility of packing a Titanic-sized ship with explosives...

...[French] authorities rounded up several members of the group who were allegedly planning attacks on the Paris metro, Orly airport, and the French intelligence headquarters. Press reports indicate that they had also considered a chemical weapons attack using ricin, but decided against it because it would be too difficult to carry out...

...Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA's counterterrorism center until he retired in 1994, explained, "We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go." He added, "There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or through (Sudanese) intermediaries. We traced considerable sums of money going from bin Laden to the GIA in Algeria. We believed some of the money came from Iraq.


Shhhhhh. No one tell the mediacrats.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Hugh Hewitt Blisters the Mediacrats


Hugh Hewitt has been on quite a roll of late, verbally torturing the blowhards who dominate what we once knew as mainstream media. Here's Hewitt blistering Helen Thomas, the longtime, Bush-hating member of the White House Press Corps:

HH: Do you think that what makes you a journalist is the fact that you won't tell people who you voted for?

HT: Did I say that? I told you that I was a straight, factual reporter for more than fifty years.

HH: And now you're an opinion columnist.

HT: That's right.

HH: And so now you can tell us who you voted for.

HT: And I don't think it's your business who I voted for.

HH: All right.

HT: And I don't think you have the right to ask anybody that question.

HH: Why not? It's a free press, isn't it?

HT: Well, it's not a fair question. It's...

HH: You want to censor my questions?


Not to spoil the conclusion, but Thomas ended the interview by hanging up on Hewitt.

And here's Hugh tasering Larry O'Donnell, the twisted partisan hack infamous for his verbal abuse of John O'Neill that resembled nothing less than a full-fledged Tourette's attack. O'Donnell had claimed he had spoken with a "dozen" lawyers, all of whom claimed Cheney was likely drunk when he shot Whittington.

HH: Larry, did you...what lawyers did you talk to that assumed Cheney was drunk?

...LO: Oh, my brothers are all lawyers. I must have talked to a dozen lawyers yesterday, including a former U.S. attorney...

...HH: Lawrence O'Donnell, I don't believe you. I don't believe you talked to lawyers who told you that Cheney was too drunk to talk. I just don't believe you.

LO: All right. Don't. Don't.

HH: Do you have any name you'll give me that we can double check?

...LO: No, it's ridiculous. I talk to lawyers all the time.

HH: Did you talk to them yesterday?

LO: What...tell me what difference that makes? Let's pretend...

HH: Well, you wrote it. I want to know about your...

LO: Let's assume that I talked to no one. Let's say that's a lie.

HH: Okay. So you did lie about this?

LO: Say it's a lie. I'm not saying...no.

...HH: No, no. I'm just trying to get the facts, Lawrence. I would like to know...

LO: Yes, I talked to a bunch of lawyers.

HH: How many?

LO: Five, six.

...HH: ...Would you give me the name of one of them?

LO: No.

HH: Because none of them really said he was too drunk to talk, right?

LO: They all did.

HH: They all said, five lawyers, and you won't let me talk to one of them?

LO: NO.

Bryant Gumbel, Mediacratic Boob


HBO's Bryant Gumbel on the Winter Olympics:

...try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention...


NB: HBO's Gumbel: Lack of Blacks Makes Olympics 'Look Like a GOP Convention'