Tobiasly’s Blog

Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protestor who has set up camp outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas, asks the following of the President and Operation Iraqi Freedom: “If it’s such a noble cause, why aren’t his daughters over there?”

I hear this rhetorical question a lot from the anti-war crowd. Michael Moore tried to ask the same of Bill O’Reiley while on his program — if O’Reiley thinks the war is worthwhile, would he sacrifice his own kid for it?

Well, Sheehans of the world, here’s your answer: because the United States has what we refer to as an "all-volunteer army". That means that no one in the armed forces joined against their will. They were all made aware of the consequences of their enlistment or commission before they ever signed on that dotted line.

So regardless of how heart-moving or thought-provoking you think that question is, the answer is just as simple. That’s just not the way it works. And just as Bush can’t "send his daughters to war", your son also knew full well the consequences of his actions when he joined.

The organization which governs much of how the Internet works recently approved a new “top-level domain” for adult-oriented content. Websites ending with .xxx will belong to this new domain, and a company was chosen to administer the domain based on a specific set of criteria and operating guidelines.

As far as I’m concerned, this seems like a great idea for everyone involved. Responsible adult websites can set up shop in this domain without fear that they will be accused of trying to lure underage or unsuspecting visitors. Parents who wish to prevent their children from viewing such content can easily set up a firewall to block it (assuming, of course, that they know enough about computers to keep their kids from bypassing the firewall). Libraries and other organizations which are under fire for being too lax in blocking this content will have a much easier time.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration and certain self-righteous religious groups are now raising objections to this domain. The “Family Research Council” made the following incredibly ignorant statement: “pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain.”

As big a supporter of President Bush that I am, it always annoys me to see him give in so easily to the religious right and other “family” groups. Cancelling Kid Rock from appearing at an inauguration event hosted by his daughters is a great example of this. If you don’t like Kid Rock, don’t watch. And while you’re at it, explain to your kids why you don’t approve of his music. Why does it so often seem that the very groups which espouse taking responsibility for raising your own children are the first ones to complain loudly and bitterly when they feel others aren’t doing enough to set standards for them?

The entire point of this new domain is to allow the adult industry to regulate itself in a voluntary, responsible manner. It’s the websites that try to pose as something else, then serve up adult content once unsuspecting websurfers enter, that these groups should worry about. It’s the websites that try to trick search engines into redirecting queries for popular information to their sites that are a problem. Any website that would set up in a domain specifically created for adult content isn’t trying to trick anyone!

Earlier this week, Microsoft released their monthly security updates for Internet Explorer (IE). As usual, this update is deemed "Critical", which means that it fixes bugs in IE which could lead to a remote attacker taking control of your computer.

How critical are these bugs? Well, one of them is so bad that an attacker can take over your computer using a simple JPEG image. For the less technically inclined, let me put it this way: someone can hide a virus, spyware, or some other nasty critter into an image on a website in such a way that simply viewing the website can let them take control of your computer.

I’ve posted several times before why you should immediately switch from using IE to Mozilla Firefox instead. In case you haven’t made the switch yet, read the rest of this article to find out why you should be very concerned.

Read the rest of this entry »

As if to underscore my statement that the popular media loves to dwell on the negative rather than highlight the positive (and this by no means is limited to Iraq, but all news in general), the media is currently having a feeding frenzy over the fact that the death toll of American troops in Iraq has passed another meaningless milestone.

How exactly is this news? Where are the reports on the number of books and school supplies handed out to schools in Iraq? Where are the reports on the number of provinces in Iraq which are relatively violence-free versus those which still pose a security risk?

Sorry, you’ll have a hard time finding news on such topics because the major news outlets will put sensationalist stories first and foremost time after time. I’m not saying that the death toll in Iraq isn’t significant, but this statistic doesn’t come close to painting an accurate picture of Iraq as a whole.