Part III – being the third head of our modern Tico version of Cerberus*

The wonderful, marvelous, modern, new 3g Kolbi internet service is here - - NOT!  You know, I am of course used to dealing with mostly American utilities and service providers.  I also have been a customer of Skype for some years, and they are European, I believe.  I will freely admit that the ‘service’ provided to me over the years from cable providers in the states was not always all that good, and I did not find them to be particularly customer oriented, but generally, they did not offer a service that they were not prepared to deliver.  And, with the exception of the cable company, most utilities that I dealt with – all my life – have been quick to apologize for service interruptions, and even to issue a credit for extended service interruptions.  Skype, for example, just recently experienced a worldwide outage that lasted for some hours.  Personally, I was not even aware of this outage, and before I became aware of it, Skype had issued me a credit as a means of apologizing for the outage.  Not only that, but I have received three apologetic emails from them since the outage.

Now we come to my alteration of Winston Churchill’s famous quote.  ICE has a very small market, compared to just about anybody, right?  That’s the ‘few; I referenced.  Then, take the value we ‘few’ receive from ICE, especially with this Kolbi thing.  That is the ‘little’ I mentioned.  As for the “many,” I mentioned, that would be the many, oh so many, too many employees of ICE.

By the way, the name, Kolbi, it has been explained to me, is the national frog of this little country, and I gotta question the use of such a symbol for this particular purpose.  I mean, many things come to mind when I hear ‘frog,’ but none of them inspire anything resembling what I might want from a service or product – you know, the little things like, oh…say, reliability, dependability, strength, value for money; stuff like that).  OK, maybe if they were quick to “hop” to providing service?  But, we all know better than that, don’t we?

Once more, here’s the thing:  back in December of 2009, that young man I mentioned at the beginning of this epic, came home to spend his holidays with his parents.  He came to see me the day after his arrival in our area, very excited to tell me that he believed ICE (his employer) was about to offer the solution to what I had been complaining about for months.  That would be the solution to my lack of a reliable and fast internet connection (because all I had available to me, up to that time, was dial up).  You see, he knew that I really wanted to be able to watch American Football, via my Slingbox, that was already set up back in Texas.  He excitedly told me about the Kolbi data card/modem.  He mistakenly said that they were going to provide download speeds of 1Gbps (that’s Giga Bit Per Second), which certainly got my attention.

He then went all the way to Tilaran the next day to get his own data card.  He came back that afternoon and showed it off to me, with his laptop, in my little living room.  We both understood that this was new, and that ICE was saying that there was an introductory price for the present because they were acknowledging that their system was not complete, so they could not promise the top speed just yet.  The understanding that we both had was that we were going to pay a very small amount per month until the system was truly up and running, and able to provide a high speed, then we would automatically get the highest speed, and our bill would go up accordingly.

Oh, he was wrong on so many accounts!  First of all the top speed promised was and is an occasional foray up to a certain point, but by no means was it being promised to be a consistently high speed.  And, it certainly was not anywhere near 1Gbps.  It was only 1Mbps (MegaBitPerSecond)**, and the wording is something like, “capable of speeds up to,” as opposed to something like, “offering sustained download speeds of 1Mbps.”  Here we come to another area that might require a bit more explanation:  I have found a web site that does a real speed test, one that offers the user an explanation for why their (ICE’s) supposed high speed internet ain’t.  It is provided by a thing called VisualWare, and is located at this URL:  http://myspeed.visualware.com/servers/namerica/iad.php?testtype=-2&codebase=speedtest.phonoscope.com&message=Speed%20testing%20help%20aids%20in%20customer%20pre%20qualification&location=USA:%20Houston,%20Texas&ver=8&map=namerica&codec=speedstd&codectext=Standard%20View&width=600&provtext=Phonoscope&provlink=http://www.phonoscope.com/

          I know, that’s a long URL, but the test provided sure serves to make me feel bad about my connection.  Yes, I said bad, and that is just what I meant to say.  What I get from their speed test is not just download and upload speeds, but also a very important little item that they label as “Quality of Service,” which is the best indicator of whether or not one really has a broadband connection.  If this percentage is low, one cannot hope to do something as simple as complete a satisfactory VOIP call, let alone ever hope to stream video or have a video conference, via VOIP.  Would it surprise you to know that my ‘Quality of Service’ is rarely up to snuff?  Just now, this morning, I ran a test, and it is actually pretty good for me, at my location.  Here is what the results look like:

 (Just click on the image to bring up a larger size).

          My download speed is rated at 974Mbps, which is pretty good for the Kolbi, and the upload speed of 291Mbps is really good for Kolbi.  Mind you, that upload speed is not as good as I would like it, but it’s better than the 150, or less that ICE usually gives me.  Now, you may have noted that the overall Quality of Service is 84%, which, according to this web sites, is not really adequate for video.  However, that being said, would you believe that 84% is better than I usually have?  And, it is raining cats and dogs right now!  Go figure.  Oh.  One more thing.  You may have noticed that the site thinks I am in the U. S. A.  That is because I use a VPN to hide my true location, since Costa Rica is noted to be a center of serious worldwide internet fraud, and many legitimate web sites, all over the world, block IP’s that are read as being in Costa Rica.

          Now, to carry on, let me sum up.  I signed up for an internet connection that I thought would give me adequate speed to do what I most wanted to do, which is watch American TV via my Slingbox/Slingcatcher combination.  My research has taught me that speed alone is not what I need for acceptable video streaming.  You see, without an adequate upload speed, whatever website you go to for downloading, doesn’t know that you want to download unless you tell them, and you can’t tell them if they can’t receive your information because your upload speed is so slow as to not be able to reach them.  Beyond that, if the connection that you achieve is not clean (jitter and other obscure technical terms apply here), you cannot hope to stream video, no matter how fast your download speed might be.

So, here I sit, more than a year into this thing.  The outages have been frequent, inexplicable, and extensive.  Never once have I heard an apology from ICE.  Even though I have gone in person to the local ICE office many times, never an explanation for outages, never an explanation for why they still are not delivering what I am paying for, never an explanation for why the service is so bad, and certainly, never any offer of credit or refund for the times when service was out.  In short, I sit here now telling you that more than one ICE employee has actually told me that I have two choices:  (1), Accept what they laughingly offer, or (2), don’t.  Can you imagine any reputable business, anywhere in the world having the audacity to offer a service that they cannot deliver, and then having the chutzpah to continue charging for the service that they do not deliver, simply because they know that their customers have no choice in the matter?!  Can you say monopoly?

To get back to that question asked in Part I of this opus, about how they can charge so much for so little:  Yes, I know a large part of the answer is obvious, and I’ve already touched on it.  That would be simply the fact that there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.  But, it goes beyond that:  There are too many employees, period.  There are too many folks who don’t want to work.  There are too many folks who can’t think beyond a very narrow set of parameters, as in beyond their own little job description.  There are too many folks who are either afraid to accept, or simply incapable of accepting, any responsibility for ever making a decision.  The saddest thing of all is that monopoly is a dirty word to most of us, but it is not only in Costa Rica that the concept is alive and well.  Look at the size of AT&T once again.  Look at the size of Exxon/Mobil.  Does anyone out there remember what Teddy Roosevelt did?

*Cerberus – according to Greek Mythology, this was the three headed dog that guarded the gates of Hell.  I know that ICE has more than three heads, but in my case there are only three that apply – electric, phone, and Kolbi.  And, I don’t think you can argue that once in (a paying customer of ICE) there ain’t no place else around here that so closely approximates most accepted descriptions of Hell as the inner workings of ICE.

** Clarification of those measurements:  mega means million, and giga means billion, so giga is 1000 times mega.

Part II: Skating On Thin _ _ _.

A continuation of a little something about our mutual friends at ICE started yesterday……….

I, for one, have no choice but to go to them (ICE) for telephone service (landline), cell phone (if I wanted one bad enough to deal with them for this, too, but fortunately I don't need one), and the current bane of my existence, their marvelous, up to date, dependable, reliable, clean and sharp 3g service, known as Kolbi. But, first, let me tell you about how we got a landline connected at our house.

We knew, while construction was going on, and while we were waiting for our cedulas, that we could not even think of asking for a phone until that pesky little residency thing was finalized. So, we didn't. Once we got our cedulas, however, and even before we took our first trip back to Texas (for an event that we knew was coming, our oldest son's wedding in October of 2009), I went to ICE to request a phone. I carefully explained that I already had undertaken to have the line run from our neighbor's property to ours totally underground. What I asked of them was to provide the line from the road down to that pole, and make the connection. There was no need for any digging or for any additional poles to be placed. Just run the line, right? I also explained that we had a document prepared by our attorney, with all necessary signatures, that gave us – and ICE – permission to run any lines needed over the neighbor's property.

They said there should be no problem, and upon accepting my deposit, they printed out a document that they said should be posted in a prominent location for their representatives to see when they got to the property to assess what was going to be needed for our connection. We then posted that notice on our house, explained everything to the caretaker, and took our trip. This notice was essentially to their (ICE's) representative/engineer, to see upon his arrival at our property, explaining to him that all fees had been paid, and even listing our eventual phone number. His job, as I understood it, was to simply look over the situation, walk the property as needed, and give the go ahead to the folks in the office to go ahead and run the additional line (on existing poles, from the road, over the neighbor's property, to the pole on her property where they were to connect to our line) required.

Upon our return from our trip, we were of course disappointed to pick up the phone, and to see that it still did not work. Timeline to this point, by the way, looks about like this: request to ICE, in their office, was made by me, and a deposit paid, on or about September 15. We left for Texas on Sept. 20, and returned from Texas on Oct. 10. So, we're only talking about three weeks and a couple of days at this point.

We naturally asked our caretaker what had happened, and found that he really didn't have a clue. He thought that someone had come from ICE, but wasn't really sure (you should be aware that this is as much due to his being a few fries shy of a happy meal, as to any actions on the part of any ICE representative). He just couldn't tell us anything.

So, I went to ICE, and learned that they didn't really know what had happened. I next asked them to please send their engineer, or whatever, back, so that I could actually talk to him. He came. I showed him my documents. I showed him where my line ran underground. I showed him where the pole is located on my neighbor's property. I showed him where the line runs, on her property, from the road. He said he understood that ICE did indeed have her permission to run my line on her property, and he said that he would give the go ahead for the connection.

A week went by. Nothing happened. So, I went again to ICE's local office. Now, I was told that the engineer, after talking to me, and after reading the documents that I had showed to him, and after being given a copy of said document, had reportedly gone to the trouble to speak directly to the neighbor, asking for her verbal OK. Again, reportedly, she had denied permission. So, I asked how could this be, and why did he feel that he had to talk to her, in the first place. In my presence the clerk placed a phone call. She told me that she was calling my neighbor personally (my neighbor happened to be in San Jose that day, so she called her on her cell). I, of course, only heard one side of the conversation. The clerk concludes her call and says the neighbor has just denied permission to her, yet again.

So, here I am, truly pissed at my neighbor, with whom I haven't spoken for a time, but who had recently, on the street in town, agreed with me that ICE could run my phone line through her property whenever they wanted to. So, next, a friend of ours, a Tica, and a truly lovely lady, went with Blanca (my wife), to talk to our neighbor. Again, she (our neighbor) couldn't be nicer, and repeated that she had no problem with ICE running my line through her property. She also repeatedly said that she had never once denied ICE any permission to go through her property. As a matter of fact, all agreed that this was the most logical way to hook us up. This was again communicated to the local ICE office, by me and by the neighbor.

What we finally figured out was that ICE wanted to run the line down the road, maybe fifty meters west of where our neighbor's line runs, and make me pay for all of the posts that this would take, so that the line would then be ready for future use for any other people who might happen along. I guess I should mention that we are on a public road (at least according to the municipalidad that has authority over our area. And, here we have yet another Costa Rican idea that is similar, yet very different from what gringos might be used to – municipality might mean a city government, but here it refers to what is more like a county-wide jurisdiction), and let's face it, it is sort of logical for a public phone line to run along a public road. However, we were very much aware that we were the only ones on said public road, and that the shortest route between us and the nearest lines, was to go across private land, and that is all we were asking for in this instance. But, evidently the fine folks at ICE had decided that by stalling my request, I would eventually agree to pony up the significantly larger amount of money that it would take to do what they wanted, as opposed to simply acceding to my original request.

It only took a few more weeks before one day two guys showed up in a little truck, with a bunch of ladders and stuff, and in less than an hour, they routed wire from the road, along our neighbors existing poles, and hooked us up right where we had asked for it all those weeks before. And, here is another twist: Those two guys? They were sub-contractors to ICE, because ICE evidently doesn't do any actual connections in our area! However, the phone is still working, albeit less than totally clear at all times, over a year later! But, here is the thing: yes, the phone is pretty much there, but not really all there, if you know what I mean. Lemme 'splain:

Not too long after the phone was finally connected, we started to run into people who asked us what was wrong with our phone because they had tried to call, but never could get through. Turns out, as improbable as this sounds, that the ringers on three separate phones all got fried at approximately the same time, so that if someone was calling us, we had no way of knowing since our phones made no sound! Not only did that happen, but the caller ID ceased to function. So, I had to buy a separate item, a ringer that I stuck on the wall, and it connects to the phone jack, and a phone then connects to it. As if this is not bad enough, we also have noticed that many times the phone rings, we answer it, and there is no one there. People trying to reach us tell us the phone rings, but then just stops. We easily confirmed this because many times when we answer no one is there, so we hang up, and then the phone rings again, and we do this over and over until we find someone on the other end who tells us that they have been trying for numerous times to reach us.

Naturally, there is nothing that ICE can do, and I can sort of see their position. You see, in order to connect us the subcontractors had to run easily over a hundred meters of line, probably more, from the road down to the pole where our line was waiting. My guys, the ones who ran our phone line underground, from the house, up to that pole, had left at least 20-30 meters of coiled line hanging on that pole. The sub-contractors didn't bother to cut off the excess, but connected to the end of that coil. So, I have at least 200, maybe more, meters of phone line running down here, without benefit of any sort of equipment to maintain a strong signal. Undoubtedly, some of the original signal strength, as found in the main line, up on the road, has been lost, so I can't ever expect to get a clean phone connection, without even more expense.

There is more to come, so stayed tuned for Part III.

The Spy Who Came For Dinner (and never left), or The Men From I. C. E.

Winston Churchill said: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." I say: "Never in field of utility service was so little owed by so few to so many."

Note: This piece was written at the request of the publisher of Top10CostaRica.com, and has already been published at that site, prior to some further editing.

Part I of III

Oftentimes, when thinking about certain local institutions (OK, just one, really) I recall those evil organizations from the spy movies and from television back in the early sixties. You know; the enemies of all mankind, the ones who wanted to take over the world. Our only hope was a James Bond, or maybe Dean Martin, in his role of Matt Helm. Wait a minute! What a strange twist of fate! Matt Helm was an agent of I.C.E. (Intelligence Counter Espionage). And, they were the good guys! Now, this is ironic, to say the least. We have come full circle! We have met the new, modern enemy, and he is ICE (say it quickly, with a Texas accent, and you'll see that I have made a pun, intended), but, of course, he was the good guy! Go figure.

This is most definitely NOT about good guys, 'cause even though there may be some good guys in the current employ of Costa Rica's ICE, none of 'em are in a position that might allow them to make any changes for the better, as in save us all from this evil. No, as a matter of fact, the good guys I know at ICE suffer right along with the rest of us, shrug their shoulders, and say, "Pura Vida, mae."

Now, one young man who I actually know, and who happens to work for ICE has a degree in Electrical Engineering, and is moving rapidly upward in the hierarchy at that institution (do you suppose, btw, that they named it as an institution however many years ago that they named it, because they knew how closely it would come to resemble bedlam?). Unfortunately, this young man is involved with the electrical supply side of things, rather than the internet 'service,' which is where I have the most problems with ICE.

But, just because I have more problems with their internet that is not to say that their phone service is anything to brag about, nor is their provision of electricity lacking in problems, or spikes on a meter. Actually, here is some real irony for you. Costa Rica can rightly be proud of the fact that ICE does manage to supply an adequate quantity of electricity for the entire country, with little or no sullying of the environment. But, that statement, just like reality, completely ignores the quality (as in, dearth of it), and one has to ask, at what cost, as in "Boy, are their rates ever steep!"?

Now we all know that this is a very seriously labor-intensive nation (one has to deal with three people just to buy one lousy nail at our local hardware store! I used to say screw, but realized that is not appropriate, since the end result is that the purchaser is pretty much well screwed upon his/her egress from the building. But that's another story). And, we know that there does not appear to be any business (other than maybe a Chinese restaurant owned/operated by a family of Chinese immigrants) that ever operates efficiently. Here is just a glimpse of how ICE tops anyone else's attempts at being not only labor-intensive, but seriously wasteful of resources and – naturally – money:

This entity must possess the largest fleet of company owned vehicles (not just per capita, but period) in the entire Western Hemisphere. An example: that young man that I referred to above, who works for ICE, (currently at a lower executive level, but moving up) recently told me how, when the executives have to attend a meeting away from their home office, this will result in the following: say there are four guys from said office going to the meeting in San Jose. Since one of the signs of a successful, one might even say upwardly mobile, ICE exec is to have an assigned car and driver that means that four different cars, with four different drivers will all make the trip. Multiply that by however many execs are attending from different parts of the country, and you get an idea of how many wasted man hours and how much wasted energy this represents. Just take a drive along any of the country's horrible roads. I guarantee you that you will see more vehicles with an ICE logo, usually with only one or two people in them, than you will see of anything else.

Now, what has me totally discombobulated, not to mention confused is this: I do not believe that any other nation on the face of this earth can make as strong a claim to be providing mostly clean energy. But, why is it so expensive? I mean, we are all aware that we pay more per kilowatt hour than any of us paid back in Gringolandia. The hydroelectric plants are in place, and some of them are really old. Windmills have been up and running for many years now. Geothermal plants have been established for a good while. Granted, new plants – both geo- and hydro- in nature, are being constructed as I write these words, and that cannot be cheap, since all the heavy equipment required both for the construction, and for the actual production of electricity, has to be imported. But, as those idiots on ESPN's MNF like to say, "Come on, Man!" Why is your unreliable product so expensive?

In one recent day I counted eight (8) – yes, that's right ocho – power interruptions! All of very brief duration, granted, but what effect do you suppose that many stop/start cycles has on expensive appliances like refrigerators, air conditioners (at the beach), and so forth? I know what effect it had on my PC. The boot portion of the HDD was fried, and I had to spend a day, plus, doing a complete system restoration. The good news is that I am capable of performing this kind of technical feat on my own, but imagine what it costs those of us who have to rely on local expertise in these situations. And, tell me, please, what kind of electrical system is so unstable? To answer my own question, let me suggest that a poorly maintained, and poorly operated, not to mention poorly constructed system might well operate so inefficiently.

Because of all the bad reports I have heard about not only frequent power surges, but ICE's lack of involvement in restoring what their customers lose due to said power surges, and in the interest of protecting my things, I have purchased and installed a whole house surge protector device. I try to remember to unplug certain items at night, not to conserve energy, but in case of yet another surge that might fry delicate circuitry. I made my contractor show me the installed grounds, and I have gone out of my way to reinforce some of the poorly grounded items that I have found. My PC is now connected via one of those UPS devices. So, not only is the questionable service overpriced, but you have to go to extra expense in other ways just to protect your various electrical/electronic devices.

More important, however, is that no one ever asks out loud, and certainly no one ever offers any explanation, regarding the main question here: "How in God's sweet name does ICE possibly justify charging so much for so little?" I'll try to answer that, and other questions, a bit later. But, first let me remind you, just in case you forgot, that ICE is also charged with providing other services, besides electricity. However, since this thing is starting to take on a life of its own, and I now realize I have two areas to cover yet, I think I'll save that for Part II.

A confession of sorts…….

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

I confess that I read the online AMCostaRica.com most every day. I know that Jay is not the world's most professional journalist, and he does not employ the most conscientious of journalists to write for his electronic rag, but where he really gets my goat is in his selection of letters from his readers, where they freely express their opinions. I know that he likes (as would any responsible newspaper person) to see controversy stirred up, so as to stimulate people's thinking and get them talking. But, from my perspective he has a tendency to publish the stupidest, most insipid letters, and then chooses not to publish the responses that you know he gets to those letters. OK, maybe this is my sensitive feelings because it seems like he pretty much ignores all of my responses, no longer publishing any of them, and only acknowledges my responses to these letter with an occasional email, pointing out where he thinks I have it wrong. Be that as it may, I no longer bother sending him anything, since it makes no sense to waste the time I spend on it.

However, just today I was going to really go off on a Mr. Colborn, because his letter is nothing more than a rant from a professional victim, but then I saw the second letter Jay published today, from an Alana Shaffer, of Sardinal. All bets are off. No contest, this lady's letter is screaming for somebody to try to set her straight, even though I know this is not a reasonable goal, since she is most likely a card-carrying, paid-up-member of the Flat Earth Society. But, here goes, anyway:

Please, lady, cite for us just one legitimate scientific study that supports your misinformed beliefs. I know that she likely does not believe in science, while she blithely goes on watching television, and movies, talking and texting, taking her medicine and her 'supplements,' and, of course, avoiding like the plague any food that is not organically produced. And, of course, she likely has no idea of where her food really comes from, and ignores the fact that science produced most of things that make her life easy and comfortable. She also probably believes that the gardener who weeds out his carrots, and removes the plants that don't grow quickly is not interfering with any "natural selection," but completely allowing God's plan to move forward. Likewise, she is blissfully unaware that the pig farmer and the cattleman have deliberately, for many, many generations, interfered with natural selection in order to produce more meat for less cost, with more disease resistance, and so on. All of which constitutes the oldest and simplest methods of genetic manipulation, but she would not see things this way. But, wait. She's probably a vegan or a vegetarian, so as not to interrupt any delicate balance of nature.

She says that genetically modified foods are "proving to be far inferior, severely allergenic, and sometimes even lethal to the consumer." Proven by whom? Inferior in what way? Where is her proof of these ridiculous charges? Give me a break! She obviously did not even read Jay's original article (http://www.amcostarica.com/wednesday.htm#77) to which she made reference, did she? She believes that chocolate is a fruit of the Gods, "designed perfectly for our consumption," does she? I will bet dollars to donuts that she has no concept of just what goes into making that fruit of the Gods palatable for human consumption. I'll bet she also has no knowledge of just how the ancients first used this 'fruit,' either. She probably, in her total ignorance, believes that one just goes out and picks a Hershey bar off the tree whenever the mood strikes one. To get back to my request for her to cite any authoritative source of information to support her claims, let's be clear that it will not satisfy this request for her to do one of those loaded Google searches, either. You know the one. That would be the one where she inputs something like, "harmful effects of genetically modified food production," rather than simply inputting "genetic modification of plants." Unfortunately, this lady is like so many others who make up their mind with minimal information, and nothing, not Hell nor High Water, will change their minds, once they have committed to a life-long system of misguided beliefs and values.

I think that what bothers me most about people like this is that they are not satisfied with clinging to unreal ideas, but want to impose their skewed beliefs onto others. And, then, I fall into the trap of speaking out and trying to show them the errors of their ways, even though I know full well that their minds are closed to new information, or anything that does not fit their preconceived idea of what is right and proper. Oh, well, pura vida con o sin genetically modified food.

Tranquilo, Mae……..

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968), Strength to Love, 1963

NOTE: this article has already appeared, in slightly different form, at Top10CostaRica.com.

I recently posted a link on this Blog to the report of the study that shows people who watch FOX News are less than optimally intelligent. I believe that this explains a bit about why I get into so many pointless discussions online. Folks who do not expose themselves to more than one source for news tend to make quick judgments that are all too often incorrect. I, on the other hand, like to hear all the evidence, or points, or sides to a story before I make up my mind on a given topic.

This likely has to do with two major influences on my thinking. First, in order to function well as a Nurse, one has to be observant enough to catch what is going on, and then be able to report objectively just what it was that has been observed. This is very important in dealing with the care and treatment of all patients. Second, later in my Nursing career, I worked for ten years as an Investigator for The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. I received further training during that time that not only reinforced my already acquired abilities in this area, but that taught me how to gather, preserve, and present evidence in a legal sense.

Another factor in the way I look at things is that, while gathering evidence, noting my observations, and reporting these faithfully, I had to strive to maintain objectivity, because my responsibility was not to provide my own opinions regarding what I observed, or what I uncovered in the course of an investigation. Nor was it my responsibility to offer any sort of conclusions (beyond the obvious summarizing of an investigative report to say that the contents either served as evidence of a violation or did not), recommendations for decisions based on the information thus gathered, or to offer any direction for continued care, or handling of a given situation. That is not to say that I was prohibited from recommending in certain investigations that further action may or may not be appropriate.

Now the folks with whom I have trouble seem to be those who form strong opinions based on little real data, or hard evidence. This either leads to a tendency to forget one of the most basic premises of our legal system, the concept that says all men are innocent until proven guilty. Or, more likely, this is simply indicative that some folks have already forgotten this all important principle. For some reason, a lot of people have trouble with that concept, and I just don't understand that. To me it is so simple. Hold off on reaching conclusions about any given situation until you have the facts – all the facts. Don't let others direct your decisions or let others do your deciding for you. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Most recently, I got into it with some of my Facebook 'friends' about the Wikileaks things, not because I tried to come out in favor of the leaker(s), but because I supported a public announcement that someone famous (Michael Moore, actually) had contributed towards the bail for Mr. Assange. Then, when I was jumped on for simply saying that was a good thing, I further pissed them off by asking them what had happened to the ancient legal tenet of one being presumed 'innocent until proven guilty.' That really set them off, because a good number of them are convinced (based on the little real information that the world has seen to date on this matter) that Mr. Assange is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors (some fools want to believe that this Australian gentleman is guilty of treason against the U. S.) as is the misbegotten U. S. Army PFC, who allegedly accessed and released certain videos and documents.

For those who might have a question about this, let me admit that there is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that says one is innocent until proven guilty, but this is such an ancient – as I said – tenet of law that it is commonly accepted to be as sacred as any other aspect of our legal system. And, it is contained in some actual statutes and written judicial opinions. It is expressed by one learned professional (whose name I did not get) thusly: "The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts."

Maybe what I'm trying to say here is that we can easily apply this thinking to a lot more than just trial law. Obviously, this is not to say that one should hold a thing up to a legal standard, but what is wrong with waiting until all the facts are in before forming an opinion? Beyond that, we all know very well that no one charged with any crime is supposed to be tried in the press, now don't we? So, why do we let the press continue to do just that? Especially certain networks, like that one that is turning some peoples' brains to mush………….? I'm just sayin'………..

Seasons Greetings

I would like to wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Most Happy and Prosperous New Year.  Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for hanging in there.

Help! There’s Wiki leaking all over my keyboard!

Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. - Laurens Van der Post

    First of all, for those who might have a truly inquiring mind, and who are actually willing to take the time to read a somewhat less than flattering view of the somewhat odious, and ever ubiquitous FOX News Channel, please click on this link: http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

I just had to share that tidbit, hopefully with a few open minds. One major reason for wanting to share it would be that I suspect that all too many hotheads out there, especially some of those who like to get into heated arguments over Iraq, Bush, Obama, Wikileaks, etc. (always on the opposite side from me of course), have no other source of information. That explains why they seldom are able to muster any facts to support their blustering arguments, and why they inevitably resort to name calling, and threats of physical violence.

Having said that, now let me continue my diatribe about Wikileaks and government "secrets," and maybe a bit of history…..

Military Secrets, Treason, Espionage…….all of these terms are being bandied about in connection with the furor over the Wikileaks.

To my way of thinking none of these terms should be out there in connection with this current flare up in the war against the dissemination of information. Herewith, my further opinions and attitude about Wikileaks:

A military secret is something important concerning possible future plans, like where were the Allies planning to land when they launched their assault on the European mainland, or weapons development, like the Manhattan Project. Something so crucial that should it become common knowledge, as in the enemy finds out about it before it happens, it could truly screw things up for us. Treason would be if some pipsqueak, or even a General (like, oh, say, I don't know……..Benedict Arnold?) ran to the enemy and gave away one or more of these military secrets. Espionage would be if that pipsqueak provided classified/secret information over a period of time to an agent of a foreign power (the American is, of course, guilty of treason while engaged in espionage, and, as we all remember from James Bond movies, espionage is spying, and if one is caught spying, one is generally subject to execution out of hand). Releasing a video of a military action after that action has become history is not any sort of betrayal of a military secret. It is just embarrassing to the idiots who committed an atrocity, or outright murder of innocent civilians (like maybe My Lai, or this helicopter shooting civilians).

The argument offered on a recent Facebook 'discussion,' from one of these erudite debaters:

"It's not just the latest documents that I am concerned about. It's the one's that claim to show... US military shooting unarmed insurgents. Crap like that puts our soldiers more at risk...not counting the US civilians that are abroad. There were weapons behind the wall where they came out of. Remember, it's war and if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time hanging with the insurgents then so be it. You shouldn't be hanging with scum like that if you're innocent in the first place... and if you are then it's more than likely you deserve to have your ass blown off."

First of all, I believe this person was referring to some video that was allegedly accessed by that idiot PFC, in Iraq, or Afghanistan. And, here is my response: My understanding of the 'release' of this information/data/evidence was NOT to the Al Queada, or to the Taliban, or to the Insurgents, but to the world at large. That is because the America (speaking only for myself here) I grew up in does not kill innocent civilians, and if we do inadvertently harm civilians, we own up to it, instead of covering up our actions. Puts our soldiers at risk? How is that? Does he seriously think that the towel heads, of whom he apparently has so much fear, don't already know about this incident, and others, maybe worse? "There were weapons behind the wall where they came out of." ??? Huh? Whose weapons? What wall? Who came out of what? The wall? It was bad enough that his argument was based on fallacious data, but to be so incapable of expressing oneself clearly in presenting it, kinda destroys it all without me having to lift a hand to the keyboard here.

I won't even honor the rest of this semi-literate statement with a response, other than to say that the same idiot statement can be turned around, can't it? I mean, the enemy can say the same thing about any American civilians who are foolish enough to be over there.

Now, speaking off the top of my head, here, it seems to me that military secrets are not routinely found in any stack of I-don't-care-how-many Diplomatic Cables, nor would the release of the contents of I-don't-care-how-many Diplomatic Cables in fact, or in law, constitute treason or espionage. Again, this information that was given over to Wikileaks, and subsequently released to the world at large by Wikileaks, is simply embarrassing to those who wrote those cables because they obviously said the wrong things in the wrong places. The general proscriptions against revealing military secrets don't say that one should participate in any kind of cover up of the truth because that truth might be embarrassing to someone high up on the food chain.

I would like to ask some of those who are screaming for the blood of Mr. Assange, or that poor, befuddled U. S. Army PFC, where were you guys when Valerie Plame was exposed by members of the Administration of the former Prexy known as W? Were you not outraged when that scandal broke? You should have been, and if you were not, then shame on you. That was criminal, and who got punished for it? Remember 'Scooter?' Did he get executed? What a joke that was.

The facts are still these: we got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because we were lied to by our own leaders. And, we let them get away with not only their lies, but their determination that our continued presence in those parts of the world is – or ever was - necessary. And, they are still busier than ever, doing all kinds of evil, while we are so busily distracted and picking at one another, fighting amongst ourselves, while they continue to further ruin our economy and our international reputation.

One of my Facebook acquaintances did acknowledge that some of the folks involved in the ongoing argument were ignoring due process, but then he blew his argument by going on to say: "I am sick of hearing how great these guys are when they are trying to destroy this country. The soldier that stole the documents committed espionage, and Assange did also by receiving the documents and mak...ing them public. 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793"

First of all, to try to stand up for "these guys'"rights is not synonymous with saying anything about how great they may or may not be. The further fallacy in this argument is that the actions of the PFC were of course not intended to, nor were they capable of destroying this country. His citing of U. S. law does him no good either, because he is taking things out of context.

Another of my FB buddies said, obviously referring to Assange: "Innocent until proven guilty? He owns the website, he admitted he's leaking the documents and threatening to leak more... He's GUILTY....period!" He was, by the way, talking about treason on the part of Mr. Assange. And, this statement actually comes from a rational and generally articulate man, whose father I admire greatly. But, he, along with the others is crying for blood!

Yet another person over there on Facebook, who claims to be presently in the military, said, among other things: "Espionage, in the 'good ole days', carried the penalty of death. The solider and Assange should be executed. due process here is nothing more than procedure. This has nothing to do with 'W'." (The mention of 'W' was the result of my accusing these guys as being the ones who used to call anyone who questioned 'W' a traitor).

There were others. The entire argument got started, by the way, because I had posted a comment on a link about how Michael Moore had put up some money for Assange's bond, in Great Britain, indicating that I thought that was a good thing. This from a lady: "Michael Moore should've had his a$$ capped a long time ago!!!"

And, then, another lady said: "We would never have won WWI or WWII with the likes of Assange and his website around. We must have National Security!! Treason.....1. A crime that undermines the offender's government 2. Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behaviour 3. An act of deliberate betrayal. By Assange's on admission....he is guilty. Treason is punishable by death." Let's see. How many holes are in that argument? Website in WWII? Did I point out here that Mr. Assange's nationality is Australian? How could he be guilty of Treason if he had something to do with American information?

It generally went downhill from there. I would add that I asked them to provide me with some facts to counter my statements and to show me where Treason or even Espionage might be part of all this, but you know what? This is what I finally got, after a day or two of waiting, taken straight from Wikipedia, as were most of their arguments:

Bradley Manning was an intelligence analyst assigned to a support battalion with the 2^nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. Agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command arrested Manning based on information received from federal authorities provided by an American informant, Adrian Lamo, in whom Manning had previously confided. Lamo said that Manning claimed, via instant messaging, to be the person who had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video of a helicopter airstrike on July 12, 2007, in Baghdad. Additionally, a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables were released to the whistleblower website Wikileaks. Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134, for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source". While stationed in Iraq, Manning had access to SIPRNET from his workstation, from where it is alleged the leaked documents originated.
To which, I can only say:  and…………..?


Then, he said: "Anything not released publicly by the government is classified. Face it, your arguement on these fools innocence is fabricated at best. I am military and I can tell you with absolute certainty what they did was wrong and is considered espionge. Your take on it is irrelavent. THe Army trator is in jail and the only jackasses who are backing the other fool are extremeist nutjobs like Michael Moore. Does this clarify things?"

I never said these people were innocent. All I had asked was what has happened to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty?' My take on it is irrelevant? My take on a statement that assumes that if it was not released by the government it is 'classified' is not remotely irrelevant. Where do you suppose he got such a strange idea? Why, because he is "military," and I am not? Horse Puckey! By the way, the misspelling was his; not mine.

Yet another response from one of them said, "Treason plain and simple -- there is a Federal death penalty on the books for that one last used for the Rosenbergs (and rightly so) for giving the H bomb to Stailn."

I did try to tell him that he was wrong mostly because he is comparing apples and oranges (the secret of the HBomb alongside a video that show us up), and that my take is most definitely not irrelevant. Again, I tried to point out that treason is not when you try to bring to the light a potentially embarrassing situation for some few high ranking individuals, but something much more serious. Of course, that effort went over like a lead balloon, as his response read:

John, all I can say to that is I know history, I know th military and I know the government. Embarrassing or not it was classified information. The only reason your ok with it is because it is about the Bush presidency. If it would have been about Obama you would have a different stance. It is not regime or partisan that ANY file released without the declassification of the U.S. Government is a crime. Your take is very irrelevant and the fact that others agree with you only shows an ignorance of reality. This reminds me when Bill got caught diddling Monica. All the sudden liberals wanted to redefine cheating. However, if there 'spouse' did the same thing he did it was cheating. Lets use an example: You son takes your videos of things you did in private. I'll let you create an example in your head, and sells them on the internet. Would you say, oh, its not important, it is just embarrassing. You'd beat his ass. If your neighbor took those video tapes and sold them to your other neighbors what would you do? Try to stop him? Go to the police? Think about it.

So, I had to ask him how he can equate the idea of a personally embarrassing video or Bill getting caught to this situation? I pointed out that, first of all, there are no videos for my son - or anyone else - to get hold of. I mean, just how stupid does he think I am? Secondly, this 'Liberal' (that term was evidently intended to be me) never - ever - considered any redefinition of cheating when Bill was caught with his, er, um, member in the cookie jar! This one (yeah, this is me) thought, "What a stupid thing to do!" I was taught not to do things that might embarrass me, like shoot a "private" video. As for me being "OK" with this wikileaks thing, I told him that has nothing to do with Obama or Bush. It has to do with reality, and the fact that some folks can't seem to remember what is real, and what is fake. And, btw, I served in the Army, too, and I know just how screwed up our government can be (remember the government is US, and if we have let it get so messed up, then shame on us - all of us!

Yes, just when I thought it could not get worse, it did, as he actually posted this:

When I said Treason I was referring to that PFC in the 10th Mountian division who gave him the materials. He took an oath and betrayed his fellow soliders. Ike had Private Slovak executed for less than that.

I then tried to point out that he was getting farther and farther from the truth and from reality, as I corrected the spelling of Pvt. Eddie Slovik's name, and pointed out that he was nothing more than a simple deserter! And, I again tried to point out that the oath taken by him, me, or any other private soldier doesn't say anything about letting in some light, where the higher-ups want darkness!

This was his response: The bottom line is you simply cannot have a functional military where information is allowed to be leaked.

And, I said that you also should not pick out a situation like this one – that did not involve true military secrets - and scream treason, espionage, or whatever, when it is not. Information of a sensitive nature, that might be threatening to the well being of the troops, maybe, but not information that reveals that those same troops have overstepped the bounds.

My main antagonist then came back with: They are one in the same. If you think war happens without someone getting killed that shouldn't get killed you are very naive. With Al Qaeda killing anyone indiscriminately we are the ones held to a moral standard. We try to maintain that ...standard to civilize and professionalize war, but reality is innocents die. Yes, it sucks. we as Americans find it repulsive, but it is a reality. Airing our dirty laundry does nothing but endanger our troops, the troops of our allies, and every American. This isn't utopia, and it will never exist.
John you need to read the UCMJ. There is no 'private' soldier. It is not a soldier's job or responsibility to shed light on anything. THe 'higher-ups' have a better image of the big-picture than a grunt who knows only his job. There are reasons generals get payed so much. They have huge responsibilities.This is about crime and justice, that's it.

All of that, while saying to the other poster, XXXX you are absolutely correct. The military is in the business of killing people and breaking things.

As I had previously stated to them, their responses were getting farther & farther from reality, and the actual topic under discussion. I pointed out the the proper English phrase is "one AND the same." And, I asked him "when did I suggest that I believe war doesn't involve killing?" And, "When did I say that it is a soldier's job to shed light on anything?" I also told him: "Don't try to tell me that I am supposed to be a perfect little sheep, and go along to get along, like the German people did under the Nazis, either. Yeah, that's right. Blindly follow where fools and a sick Corporal lead us? I am not concerned about "airing our dirty laundry" in front of others so much as exposing the truth to the American people, because (apparently y'all have forgotten) it is our country that has now earned this terrible reputation in the world community, and I - for one - did not ever vote for this crap."

Of course he wasn't through yet: I forgot. Farther and farther. Back to your original post, the above is what the fuss is all about. Michael Moore is an idiot. The two fellas responsible for this leak, should be prosecuted and punished according to the laws of the UCMJ and the U.S. Desoite what you think all the fuss is about.

At that point I broke it off, saying, "I'm sorry, but since you don't even have the basic facts straight, how can anyone have a discussion with you? Y'all have a nice day."

‎I think the next post came from a twitter: The great thing about Democracy is that we can even have this debate. At the end of the each election day all of our points of view are totaled up and reflected by the new Congress. I am sure you remember the "Pentegon Papers" an...d similar dirt from SE Asia back in the 70's. War is messy and the politics behind the war effort back in DC have historically been a messy business -- kind of like making sausage you really want to stay out of the factory and stick with the supermarket. We could have had the debate over Vietnam or even WWI with some of the leaks that happened back then in the traditional press. Some of us like myself were in the Army and that background forms our belief system on these sorts of issues -- disobeying lawful orders is very bad with severe penalaties and we had that drilled into our heads from day one at boot camp. I really do respect your point of view and at the end of the day can agree to disagree. Take care, XX

Well, what can I say? I do think that this wikileaks thing is less important than some would have us believe, and I think it probably helps those who want to keep us distracted from real issues that are really demanding our full attention. I don't like what is happening. I don't understand why we still have a presence in that part of the world, and I really don't like how it seems that we are our own worst enemy.