Top Hits

You sure are purdy!

Don’t get excited guys. She’s taken. Her fiance wears a gold chain if that tells you anything. But enough about my jealousy.

Jesse Preston (pictured center in front of creepy old man) is a 20-year-old cybermodel making waves online including MySpace. The Hooters waitress and calendar girl has appeared in a number of publications during her short modeling career including four Playboy Special Editions (I wonder if she knows Kyla Ebbert). She most recently appeared in Strobe Magazine…yeah, I’ve never heard of it either…which she touts as a “classy and sexy” rag. After perusing its online pages, I’d have to agree.

I was born in Brooklyn NY and came to FL when I was very young, and I’m glad I did because being here has given me so many opportunities I might not have had anywhere else.

Courtesy StrobeMagazine.com

When you get a chance, stop by Jesse’s MySpace at www.myspace.com/dreamscumtru. Hmm…nice address. Classy and sexy. Kidding, Jesse. You’re beautiful (in a New York accent). Hey, Jesse. I’ve got a few extra RETOX BAR shirts. I’d love for you to have one, and maybe wear it in a photo. Lemme know.

[Hat Tip: HottestGirlsOfMySpace]

ShareThis

Kristen Bell is more than just a perky blonde actress. This 27-year-old Michigan native may be rising in the mainstream entertainment world, but to geeks everywhere, Bell is royalty. So where did she come from and where is she going? Allow us to enlighten you on the career of Ms. Kristen Bell.

Read more!

We covered crooked Anna Diggs Taylor’s ridiculous ruling in federal district court pretty extensively last year. Check it all out here.

Good news from the 6th Circuit today. From a PAO at Justice:

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision today, which confirms that plaintiffs in this case cannot seek to expose sensitive details about the classified and important Terrorist Surveillance Program. The Terrorist Surveillance Program was a vital intelligence program that helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks. It was always subject to rigorous oversight and review. Any electronic surveillance that was being conducted pursuant to the TSP is now being conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.”

The ACLU registers its tears and its marching orders to Congress: ACLU: Wiretap Suit Is Not Over

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s decision that insulates the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. As a result of today’s decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance.

“It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful.

“We are currently reviewing all of our legal options, including taking this challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime it is now more important than ever for Congress to engage in meaningful oversight.”

Of course, the goofbags who filed the suit have no evidence that their calls were monitored, as the court points out:

In the present case,the plaintiffs concede that there is no single plaintiff who can show that he or she has actually been wiretapped.

I’m thinking, since the program that was challenged was one that monitored calls between overseas terror suspects and American contacts that these guys should be looked at. If they are not chewing the fat with suspected terrorists for nefarious reasons, their international calls would not be monitored and if they were, there would be a ready explanation as to why they were talking to terror suspects in order to conduct their “business.” So where would this “chilling effect” come from? Since they are worried about it and in fact argued in court that they were good candidates for communication interception, it sounds like they are admitting that they are knowingly cozy with some jihadis.

Through that prism, it sounds like the very existence of the program had a deterrent effect by stopping people who seem to be asking that their communication to overseas terror suspects not be monitored so they can plot in peace.

The court:

Thus, in crafting their declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs have attempted (unsuccessfully) to navigate the obstacles to stating a justiciable claim. By refraining from communications (i.e., the potentially harmful conduct), the plaintiffs have negated any possibility that the NSA will ever actually intercept their communications and thereby avoided the anticipated harm — this is typical of declaratory judgment and perfectly permissible…But, by proposing only injuries that result from this refusal to engage in communications (e.g., the inability to conduct their professions without added burden and expense), they attempt to supplant an insufficient, speculative injury with an injury that appears sufficiently imminent and concrete, but is only incidental to the alleged wrong (i.e., the NSA’s conduct) — this is atypical and, as will be discussed, impermissible. Therefore, the injury that would support a declaratory judgment action (i.e., the anticipated interception of communications resulting in harm to the contacts) is too speculative, and the injury that is imminent and concrete (i.e., the burden on professional performance) does not support a declaratory judgment action.

The court continues:

It is not the mere existence of the TSP, but the possibility that the plaintiffs’ overseas contacts will be subjected to it, that ultimately results in the alleged harm. Even assuming these fears are imminent rather than speculative, this is still a tenuous basis for proving a concrete and actual injury. That is, even if it were certain that the NSA would intercept these particular plaintiffs’ overseas communications, if the overseas contacts were nonetheless willing to communicate with the plaintiffs by telephone or email in spite of the impending interception, then it is doubtful that the plaintiffs (journalists, academics, lawyers, or organizations), who have themselves alleged no personal fear of our government (or basis for fear of our government), would still be unwilling or unable to communicate. The plaintiffs’
unwillingness comes not from any anticipated harm to themselves, but from their apprehension for and duty to their overseas contacts.

Moreover, even if their allegations are true, the plaintiffs still allege only a subjective apprehension and a personal (self-imposed) unwillingness to communicate, which fall squarely within Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14. In fact, this injury is even less concrete, actual, or immediate than the injury in Laird. In Laird, the Army was conducting “massive and comprehensive” surveillance of civilians, secretly and (apparently) without warrants. The Laird plaintiffs alleged that the Army surveillance program caused a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights in that they and others were reluctant to associate or communicate for fear of reprisal, stemming from their fear that the government would discover or had discovered them (and their activities) by way of the secret surveillance. The harm alleged in the present case is no more substantial; the plaintiffs allege a similar chilling effect on their First Amendment rights, in that they are bound by professional and ethical obligations to refrain from communicating with their overseas contacts due to their fear that the TSP surveillance will lead to discovery, exposure, and ultimately reprisal against those contacts or others. But unlike the Laird plaintiffs, the plaintiffs here do not assert that they personally anticipate or fear any direct reprisal by the United States government, or that the TSP data is being widely circulated or misused. Indeed, the district court stated that, to date, no one has been exposed or prosecuted based on information collected under the TSP.

This case was carved up (an “acceptable ruse”) into six causes of action by the plaintiffs and the opinion addresses them all separately. Just thought I’d pull some nuggets that dealt with what I see as the most ridiculous claim of the plaintiffs and how the court addressed it. Wish I had more time. I end with the following:

We hold that the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their claims in federal court. Accordingly, we VACATE the order of the district court and REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.

In another blow against freedom of speech on the Internet, Fox News is reporting that Google has taken the measure of de-listing the work of an anti-UN blogger named Matthew Lee. For several years, Lee has run the Inner City Press, a small news/opinion site that is focused on criticizing the United Nations. But since Google has teamed up with the UN on recent initiatives, Google has found that Lee's criticism is too much for them to handle.

Mr. Lee has been taking after big targets for a long time, so he is no newcomer to the scene. In 1987 he went after Citigroup with his corruption exposes, but since 2005 the United Nations has been his favorite target. He has especially focused on the "inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme."

As Fox News reports:

Many of Lee's stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read… But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.

After the Government Accountability Project discovered the plight of Inner City Press and raised their own stink about the de-listing, Google claimed that the de-listing was a mistake but that it would take "a couple weeks" to fix the "glitch."

"We acknowledged our misunderstanding … but it takes time for the restoration to occur," [Google spokesman Gabriel] Stricker said. "The glitch will be resolved as soon as possible. We're working on it."

The GAP, however is none too happy about Google's "glitch." GAP's international-program director Bea Edwards told Fox that Inner City Press was "the most effective and important media organization for UN whistleblowers."

"We're alarmed. The question is, is what user sent the complaint? And it's probably not too hard to guess. We would guess the complaints came from the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)."

This isn't something new for Internet organizations like Google, however. Google and other Internet organizations like Newsvine and Digg have been embroiled in efforts to eliminate the conservative voice from the Internet for quite some time.

For instance, Newsvine recently canceled the account of the conservative news/opinion site called The New Media Alliance. And, as Noel Sheppard reported back in May of 2006, the conservative opinion site called The New Media Journal was removed from search engines by Google because Google deemed the commentary site a "hate site."

So, far from being the wild west of opinion, the Internet is seemingly more and more in the grip of leftist organizations that are out to eliminate conservative expression on the net. Add to this the liberals in Congress who want to reinstate the inaptly named "Fairness Doctrine," and we get ominous signs of the left's oppressive ideas of "freedom of speech."

It's just one more example that Jonah Goldberg is right. Liberals are closer to fascists than any conservative.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warns EU states not to block talks on a new treaty. - [Read more]

Favourite Pati - Sumeet (Hussain) from Kumkum Favourite Patni - Kumkum (Juhi Parmar) from Kumkum Favourite Saut - Tanya (Rakshnada Khan) from Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi Favourite Khalnayak - Bhimdev (Chetan Hansraj) from Darti Ka Veer Yodha-Prithviraj Chauhan Favourite Bahu - Nandini (Gauri Pradhan) from Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi Favourite Yogya Jodi - Prithviraj (Rajat Tokas)-Sanyogita(Mugdha [...] - [Read more]

A major UK presence will need to last decades to help rebuild Afghanistan, says the new ambassador. - [Read more]

Terry Heaton has an RSS feed through Technorati thats a search pattern for his name, same as what I do with NewsGator Online. Indeed, its usually a smart strategy for keeping track of your company, products and identity in the blogosphere.

Except when Nude Japanese Nurses sneak into the picture:

Now its possible that Terrys name is appearing in the porn RSS feed, but unlikely. Nonetheless, Dave Sifry at Technorati explains...

Here is a 3-minute video explaining the Amnesty Bill that Congress is trying to pass. I think most people will be amazed. Click here

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Have you directly invested in very early stage startup companies in the past? At the time, did you have a net worth of under a million dollars and earn less than $200,000 annually?

If so, Dr. Scott Shane, Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University, is looking to interview you for a new book hes working on that aims to debunk many of the myths of angel investors and angel investing.

Heres an email message he sent me describing his project and what he seeks: If youd like to contact him and possibly help with the book, youll also find his email address below too.

My dear friend Kidino (one of my VERY first online friends from when I get started in this business) has created a new site called…

www.MiniSiteGallery.com

This is going to be a huge site featuring kick butt mini sites. We all need those to sell our products online.

However, to really get it started, he’s holding a $500 Design Contest…

Got what it takes?

Here’s the scoop on the contest…

To get MiniSiteGallery.com off the ground, I am running a design contest for mini-site designers.

There no secret that I need more mini site template designs for the gallery. So that is why I am doing this contest. But you as the contestants can expect huge traffic and exposure coming your way as a result of this contest.

And apart from that, you can also expect MiniSiteGallery.com to grow into one of the most popular website template download gallery on the WWW.

I am putting aside my own $500. And I hope I can gather more from sponsors (write to me about sponsoring this contest - kidino[at]moneyclicking[dot]net).

I believe I have said enough. So here are the details about the contest.

Last Entry Date: 29 February 2008 (entries after this date will not be included for the contest)

To enter the contest, just head over to www.minisitegallery.com/contest

I personally can’t wait to see the gorgeous designs that come out of this site!

Liz

Bush has banned ESCR just like he has banned my daughter from attending the local posh private school or like I’ve been banned from going to the movies. Just because something is not paid for by the federal government, doesn’t mean it’s banned, but that’s what the ESCR zealots would have you believe. Anyway, why would the federal government be funding what is now a fairy tale when other stem cell treatments and therapies are available and have been more clinically successful than the up-to-now complete failure that is ESCR? Add that to recent news that other cells may be converted into what amounts to ESC, which would allow for scientists to do the research they promise will lead to the cure to everything , and we have even more reason to applaud President Bush for vetoing this bill.

Reuters: Bush will veto popular stem-cell bill: aides

President George W. Bush on Wednesday will veto legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, aides said, triggering an uphill battle in the Democratic-led Congress to override him.

Two-thirds majority votes would be needed in the Senate and House of Representatives to overcome Bush’s opposition and make the bill law, and backers conceded at this point they are short of support.

In addition to vetoing such legislation for the second time in two years, Bush will issue an executive order to encourage scientists to work with the federal government to derive new methods to obtain stem cells without harming human embryos, aides said, adding he would announce no new funding.

The action was not expected to ease criticism of the president’s opposition to the stem-cell measure, which polls show is backed by more than 60 percent of the American public.

The president and other critics condemn the legislation as morally offensive because it would lead to destruction of human embryos to derive stem cells.

“The president supports and encourages stem cell research — including using embryonic lines — as long as it does not involve creating, harming or destroying embryos. That is an ethical line that should not be crossed,” a White House spokesman said.

But backers note the legislation would only permit scientists to use embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. They also say it could clear the way for possible medical breakthroughs that could help millions of people suffering with debilitating diseases.

Shortly after Bush took office in 2001, he allowed federal funding on 78 stem cell lines then in existence. Most turned out to be of limited use to scientists, who have urged the president to lift his restrictions.

The reason the bill is “popular,” I suspect, is that supporters have been very successful in suckering the half-conscious public into believing that “no federal funds=ban” and that all the paralyzed people in America will stay that way if we don’t immediately open a government embryo factory. The “restrictions” are no restrictions at all. If the “promise” of ESCR is so great, let the free market rush to pour billions and billions into it. If this research holds as much “promise” as its backers claim, I’m sure one of the Big Pharms would love to go down in history as funding the cures for cancer, paralysis, AIDS, restless leg syndrome, malicious gossip, overcooked hamburgers and mothers-in-law. No reason for the federal government (read: you and me) pump billions into the pie-in-the-sky.

Redstate has a detailed analysis of the response including the accompanying Executive Order, which sounds pretty common-sensical and “pro-science”: Showing the Way on Stem Cells

As predicted:

Daily Kos: “Bush preventing the stem cell research”

Congressman Chris Murphy of Conn. (via Daily PsyKosis): “today, the President chose to deny access to medically justifiable and ethical stem cell research”

Nancy Pelosi: “it is irresponsible for the President and many Congressional Republicans to stand in the way of such progress”

“Clinton Pledges to Lift Ban on Stem Cell Research as President”

Final note: the Big Message from the Left has been pounded pretty hard and pretty effectively from an objective standpoint. The Big Message summarized: In furtherance of an ideology over science agenda, Bush has stolen the hope of all Americans with every disease known to man by vetoing this bipartisan measure which is supported by an overwhleming majority of Americans. The uniformity of the Left’s response should disabuse the Lefties who accuse Conservatives from working off a sheet of talking points of the notion that their “leaders” aren’t at least as inclined to take a “lockstep” approach to public policy.

I’m not gonna lie…I’m not a huge reader. As Mike Birbiglia would point out, I’m more “magazine smart” than book smart. But every now and then, I enjoy perusing the pages of a book usually on the recommendation of a select group of friends…all of whom I consider to be more intelligent than yours truly. Predictably Irrational is one of those books.

I had the opportunity to sample Predictably Irrational before its release date, which is today I might add. The book, which was written by Dr. Dan Ariely provides a refreshingly entertaining look at how we are fooled by irrational behavior, and how we can make better choices about our day-to-day decisions with simple strategies. Despite his big-ass experience (i.e. “Russell & Tate“), his approach certainly isn’t academic, but rather easy to interpret.

Chapter Three entitled “The Cost of Zero Cost” examines the way “free” items are “incredibly appealing” even though what we really want costs very little to begin with. For instance, standing in line for a couple of hours for a free meal at a new restaurant (I’m ashamed to admit that I did this when Chipotle opened its first franchise in San Antonio a few years ago), or falling victim to the buy two get one free gimmick when all you need is one. I remember while in college the credit card companies used to exploit our penchant for free t-shirts to lure students into applying for credit. These are only a few of the everyday experiences Dan Ariely discusses in the book.

I highly recommend this read. Of course, I got it for free. But that shouldn’t matter as you will find out in Predictably Irrational.

About Dan Ariely
Dr. Dan Ariely is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Behavorial Economics at MIT, where he holds a joint appointment between MIT’s Program in Media Arts and Sciences and the Sloan School of Management. He is also a researcher at the Boston Federal Reserve Bank and a visiting professor at Duke University. Dr. Ariely wrote Predictably Irrational while he was a fellow at the Institute for Advance Study at Princeton.

ShareThis

Former Arsenal skipper Patrick Vieira tells the BBC Thierry Henry will leave the Gunners if the club does not bring in several world-class players. - [Read more]

ABC News: Gay Marriage Safe in Massachusetts

Subhead: A Vote to Redefine Marriage as a Union Between a Man and a Woman Was Defeated

“Redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman…”

“Redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman…”

“Redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman…”

“We were always at war with…”

h/t: Newsbusters

Here is a 3-minute video explaining the Amnesty Bill that Congress is trying to pass. I think most people will be amazed. Click here

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Searching for rent vs. buy information about a local real estate market? HotPads.com combines maps, visual images, and information to give you a birds eye view of rental and buying opportunities in local markets. If you want to compare available sales and rentals by price range, then HotPads.com is worth a visit.

Ive been jealous of my Windows friends running Roboform for a long time, so when I first bumped into 1Passwd and started to use it, I was delighted. A lightweight, secure password storage utility that let me easily switch between Safari and Firefox on my Mac with nary a glitch? Excellent!

In the last few weeks, however, I was a bit dismayed to find out that the developer, Roustem Karimov, had completely changed his license scheme and actually forced me to reregister the software and get a completely different kind of registration key: a JPEG graphic with the reg data embedded in the comments (see right).

Curious what had prompted this change, I sent off some questions to Roustem and received back the following interesting information from him...