Bad Blogger

How the justice system has been manipulated to put astonishing numbers of vets with PTSD and other psychiatric injuries behind bars.
By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted August 12, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/world/140828/the_tragedy_of_our_%27disappeared%27_veterans/

Wayne McMahon was busted on gun charges six months after he got out of the Marines.

He was jumped by a gang of kids in his hometown of Albany, N.Y. , and he went for the assault rifle he kept in the back of his SUV.

He's serving "three flat, with two years of post-release" at Groveland Prison in upstate New York.

Maybe it's tempting to write McMahon off as just a screwed-up person who made the kinds of mistakes that should have landed him in jail, but maybe that's because his injuries don't show on the outside.

His parents were teenagers when he was born, and they separated shortly after. He bounced around on the streets of Albany, and, like so many other young Americans with dreams of escaping dysfunctional families and lousy neighborhoods, he saw the military as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

He enlisted in the Marines right out of high school.

Volunteer Army MY ASS!!!


Treatment Center for Iraqi Veterans suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

Read more...

and I haven't even started with the evil that is Santa Rosa, California

PayPal an deBay both are scams

Both eBay and PayPal are owned by the same company but they act like they are separate. Both claim to have buyer/seller protection but in reality, neither does. I made a software purchase (online and not from eBay) and it didn't do anything the author said it would. In fact, I spent a day trying to get it to work. My server met all the requirements the author required it to work. After wasting a day, I removed the software and contacted the author for a refund. Keep in mind that I spent a day going back and forth with their support to get it to work. Anyhow, they did not want to refund my money so I filed a complaint with PayPal and their automated system rejected it right away because the item wasn't physically shipped, it was downloaded. So I ended up having to do a chargeback. Got an email from PayPal about doing this.

Now that's just one of my stories. Let's look at their policy. 1st you have to make sure you ship to the address the buyer is registered with on PayPal, then you have to ship it by a means that trackable then believe it or not, you also have to insure it even though this isn't stated clearly. Now let's say the buyer claims he never received it and contacts PayPal. PayPal wants the shipper and tracking info. If you have that information, then they make you call the shipper and file a claim with them. According to eBay, sellers state the terms in the auction e.g. Shipping Insurance. If the buyer doesn't want to pay for insurance and then claims they reveived the item damaged, PayPal will tell you that you are to blame for not purchasing insurance regardless of eBay Policy. So what exactly is it that they do for protection? When anybody finds the answer to this, can you let me know please. eBay on the otherhand is no better. They pass the buck to PayPal who then makes you go through the same silly circle.

Evidence from Mountain View: Google is in favor of censorship and against human rights

Slowly even the Google stock holders are beginning to realize that the “cool” company has quite a few things to catch up on regarding data protection and privacy, and that Google has some enormous deficits in its attitude toward censorship and human rights. At the upcoming stockholders meeting on the 8th of May these topics are on the agenda. The “Googlers” will most probably not deal with these questions for a long period of time and will push the topics aside as fast as possible – as the agenda proves. I recommend that those who still think Google is a “good company, which does no evil” should read the “2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders Notice of the Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement”.

The New Yorker Office of the Comptroller of New York City and the monastery “St. Scholastica” have proposed, that Google should oppose censorship, support the right for freedom of opinion and press, and should no longer store user data.

Here are the claims in detail:
1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
5) Users should be informed about the company’s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

And here is the answer/recommendation by the Google Directors:
Recommendation: Our board of directors recommends a vote AGAINST the stockholder proposal.


and from WebGuild.org:

Google Assists Indian Police Arrest Student

Google provided Indian police with information that led to the arrest of 22 year IT professional, Rahul Vaid, on Friday (May 16, 2008).

Vaid posted derogatory content about Congress chief Sonia Gandhi on a orkut community named — “I hate Sonia Gandhi”. The messages were circulated through an email address – Rahulvaidindia@gmail.com, which is operated by Google's Gmail.

The investigation began in December 2007 when the cyber crime cell of Pune police communicated with the Google seeking details about the identity of the person who formed the forum and circulated the obscene content.

On Friday evening a team of Indian police arrived at the home of Rakul Vaid in Gurgaon city, Haryana. He was arrested and flown to Pune where he was arrigned on Saturday. Vaid was charged under section 292 of Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act because he created a profile and then posted content in vulgar language about Sonia Gandhi in the community. If proved guilty, Vaid could be imprisoned for up to five years and may have to pay a fine up to Rs. 100,000.