Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A New Scam

This is one I hadn't seen before. But I've since received two emails saying the same thing. The scam is as follows:



After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity
we have determined
that you are eligible to receive
a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $120.50.
Please submit
the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days
in order to IWP the data received.
If u don't receive your refund within 9 business
days from the original IRS mailing date shown,
you can start a refund trace online.

If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether
they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org.
is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will
be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes.

If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing
the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of
section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors,
trustees, members, or major contributors.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,
a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.




First, the email was sent to "undisclosed-recipients" which would imply a mass BCC mailing. If the IRS was communicating to me via email, it wouldn't be as a mass mailing.

Second, the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code is a provision granting exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations. It has nothing to do with tax refunds.

Third, I checked out the link provided (without actually clicking on the link and possibly getting directed to a malicious site) and it definitely did not go to the IRS.

So, remember, if someone is emailing you saying that you have money coming to you, there's a 99.999999999% chance it's a scam. If you respond to these scams, you will be one of the reasons they keep propagating.

Be careful out there.

(Please note that I changed the url in the live link portion of the scam email. It will take you nowhere now)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Finally, A Reasonable Voice

From article found here: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Congratulations Tampa Bay Rays!

You earned your first American League Pennant and, in doing so, your ticket to the World Series. You took down the defending 2007 Word Series Champions. It wasn't easy or quick, but you did it. Jon Lester pitched well enough to win, but Matt Garza pitched well and won the game. Unfortunately, the Red Sox bats took a breather at the very wrong time.

They say it's pitching that wins series. To a point, that's true. It only takes one run to win a game. The pitcher who is able to prevent that run can come away with a win.

However, offense is equally important. Am I the only one who thinks that if a team doesn't produce runs, it won't win? The Red Sox spent a fair amount of time this season not producing runs.

They produced enough to win the wild card, but how often was it agonizing to watch them struggle at the plate?

One has to wonder how or if things would have been different if Manny Ramirez was still in a Red Sox uniform. The common consensus is that he probably wouldn't have played anyway either by dogging it or being benched for dogging it.

But can we say that his presence in the lineup - at least his 2007 presence - was sorely missed?:

Jason Bay did a notable job taking over the Manny spot on the roster. He was very productive and an upgrade defensively. But his hitting wasn't electric.

Not like Manny's.

I don't know what the answer is for the Red Sox. Without Manny behind him, David Ortiz isn't the same hitter. Pedroia and Youkilis can't carry the team for the whole season, and it's gotten to the point where the bottom third of the order is a cakewalk for the opposing pitcher. It reminds me of Little League where you have all your good hitters at the top of the order, and you grit your teeth patiently while dying through the bottom.

I don't see the Red Sox doing a lot in the off-season. There are issues to be addressed. I can't, for the life of me, though, see them making major changes to the team.

I guess it all remains to be seen.

For the time being, the kudos belong to the Tampa Bay Rays. Good luck in the World Series.

I hope Philadelphia beats you.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

They've Got Spirit, but....

After an optional practice today, the Red Sox were upbeat according to an article by Adam Kilgore of Boston.com, the online arm of the Boston Globe.

"We've got nothing but baseball ahead of us," catcher Jason Varitek said. "Belief. It wasn't just '04, '07. We've been able to do it. It leaves an overriding belief. I believe. I believe that if we execute what we can do,we're going to present ourselves with a great chance to win."

Sure, the Red Sox have a chance to win. They've had three chances to win in their last three games.

But they didn't.

It doesn't matter what they believe because the Rays believe THEY can win. And WILL win.

Sort of negates each other, doesn't it?

The objective observer would look at the Red Sox and see too many problems for them to be able to pull off another 07 or 04. It would be a nice story.

If you can believe it.

****************************************

Tampa Bay Rays manager, Joe Maddon, adjusted his regular rotation to have Scott Kazmir start the next game against the Red Sox instead of James Shields.

I find this interesting because Kazmir was the only Rays pitcher the Sox were able to tee-off on. The Rays ended up winning Game 2 in extra innings but only after Kazmir was roughed up for five runs.

This rotation change will mean that Kazmir will go against Dice-K who won Boston's only victory in the series. I wonder if Maddon means for this series to go back to Tampa Bay, so they can celebrate on their home field.

I really do wonder that.

Really.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Win Bigger Than It Looked

The Tampa Bay Rays 9-1 win over the Sox last night was bigger than it looked.

First, the Rays got back their home field advantage with that win. If the Sox want to win the pennant, they will have to do it at the Trop.

Second, it made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human, not so intimidating.

Third, it gave the Rays back the confidence they've had all year. They are now in 'surge' mode.

On the other side of the coin,

It made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human. Besides Jon, who else is there? Dice-K? He manages to get it done but not without a lot of drama. Beckett is clearly no longer the ace, and this starting rotation doesn't look so very strong any more.

Can we quit with the Ellsbury as lead-off batter experiment and put Crisp in there instead? Coco has been hitting, and he's quite fast. Ellsbury has left the building for some reason, along with a few other batters like the once-feared Big Papi.

Speaking of which, it would appear that David Ortiz only got to the place he did in hitting because Manny batted behind him. Take Manny out of the equation and apparently Ortiz is only a nominal hitter.

I predicted to a local radio show that if the Sox win the ALCS, it will be in seven games.

I also predicted that if the Rays win it, it will be in five games.

Everything is on track to come true.

On one good note: the Phillies are now one game away from getting into the World Series. They have a 3-1 lead in the NLCS. I am rooting for them to go all the way.

Unless the Red Sox make it in, of course.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Did the Better Team Lose.... or Win?

It is a day for second guessing after the Boston Red Sox finished off the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, winning their American League Division Series, 3 - 1. The Angels had the best record in Major League Baseball for the 2008 regular season. The Red Sox, on the other hand, entered the series as the wild card team, unable to wrest the top spot of their division from the Tampa Bay Rays.

The Angels were a little flummoxed by their loss. After all, they were the better team as evidenced by the following excerpts:

The consensus in the clubhouse, from starter John Lackey -- seven innings, two earned runs -- to veterans Garret Anderson and Hunter, was that the superior team did not win this series.

"It's totally different [than the 2007 sweep by the Red Sox]," Lackey said. "They were better than us last year. They're not better than us this year."

To [Garret] Anderson, whose future also is uncertain, as the Angels hold an option on his contract for next season, "losing is always hard. I honestly felt we were better than they were, but it doesn't matter if you don't win. We just didn't get the job done and they did."

"You're not going to know who's coming back," [Torii] Hunter said, referring to potential free agents K-Rod, Anderson, Teixeira, Jon Garland, Juan Rivera and Darren Oliver. "You can't say you're going to be in the postseason again and have a team like this.

"This was our chance with this team -- unless everybody comes back. We're a better team than those guys, but they're moving on. They did something right, obviously."

Pitcher Scot Shields and Manager Mike Sciosia were a little more realistic in their assessments:

"I thought for sure that was definitely game over on the play Tex made," Shields said. "They deserve it. They beat us."

"I thought we played much better this series than going back to '04 or '07 against them," Scioscia said. "It's naturally disappointing, but we're going to have to keep trying to get better. That's all we can do."

Were the LA Angels better than the Boston Red Sox?

Conventional wisdom says that the better win-loss record would dictate such thinking. It has been pointed out, however, that the Angels were in a much weaker division than the Red Sox and consequently had a fairly easy go of it for half their games.

The Angels defeated the Red Sox nine times in ten appearances during the regular season. Unfortunately, the Red Sox were constantly dealing with injuries throughout the year, which actually makes their entrance into the post-season even more impressive.

The Angels retooled a bit with the signing of Torii Hunter in the off-season and the trade for Mark Texiera before the deadline. These two players alone provide much needed pop in the middle of the order taking some of that pressure off Vlad Guerrero.

The Red Sox, on the other hand, lost megamashing star Manny Ramirez, perhaps the most feared hitter in baseball today. Without Manny backing him up, David Ortiz' power numbers have dropped drastically (not to mention injury earlier in the season). Mike Lowell, last year's World Series MVP, was no presence in the post season due to a tear in the labrum of his hip. Josh Beckett struggled, causing one to wonder if he was still being nagged by his oblique strain. And post season domineer, Curt Schilling, missed the entire season due to shoulder problems.

In addition to the injuries, two of the club's biggest hitters, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, decided to go cold for the series.

So, how was it that the "superior" team lost?

Baseball is often a series of lucky breaks, opportunities caused by mistakes and intricate strategies working out correctly. There was certainly a mix of all that in the four games. Errors that cost runs. Squeeze plays not performed properly. Stupid base running gaffes.

But neither team held a clear advantage in any of that.

Pitching is crucial to winning. With the exception of Jon Lester, who was basically unhittable, there was no pitcher that stood out as being dominant. Lackey was decent, but the Sox have scored off him before. Sox pitchers gave up runs as well as Angels pitchers, just not as many.

Jason Bay hit a couple home runs, and JD Drew hit one as well. Mike Napoli dinged a couple over the Green Monster during the one game that the Angels won. The series, though, wasn't exactly a clinic for power hitting. Nor was it really a clinic for small ball either.

So, we come back to the question - how did the "superior" team lose?

The only answer I can come up with is that sometimes the numbers lie. Regular season statistics go out the door in the post-season, and the truth of the matter is this....

It is ALWAYS the better team that wins.

Friday, October 3, 2008

In Dollar We Trust?

There's an email going around instructing you to NOT receive any of the new dollar coins that are going into circulation (or maybe they are already) because the motto "In God We Trust" has been removed from them.

I don't believe we NEED "In God We Trust" on our currency in order to make transactions, however, I understand the principle behind the purpose of the email. It would be one more step in removing any recognition of God in our culture, and that is troubling.

However, the email is incorrect. "In God We Trust" has not been removed, it has been moved. Instead of finding it on the face of the coin, it has been stamped into the edge of the coin. That area that one would normally associate as the rough rim of a quarter, or the smooth rim of a nickel - there you will find "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust."

So do the person who sends you this email a favor. Enlighten them with the truth. It is in short supply these days.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

October Baseball - Does it Get Any Better?

The post-season players:

NLDS
Philadelphia vs. Milwaukee
Chicago vs. Los Angeles

ALDS
Tampa Bay vs. Chicago
Boston vs. Los Angeles

Los Angeles and Chicago are having a dream post-season, eh?

So far, the Dodgers have beaten the Cubs, 7-2. The Phillies beat the Brewers, 3-1 and the Red Sox topped the Angels, 4-1.

Good to see the Phillies back in the swing of it. It's been a while. Same with the Cubs. I would have liked to see them beat the Dodgers in their own field, but that's what can happen in baseball. Also good to see Boston show some life. I'm not sure starting Lackey in the first game was a wise move. True, he pitched a great game against the Sox at Fenway not too long ago, but Santana would have been better out of the gate. Historically, Lackey doesn't fare well against the Sox.

Anyway, the end of summer is upon us (post-season baseball) even though the end of summer was a week or two ago. Enjoy.