Marc Perkel Rantz

Being Consistent

Letter to the Editor

One thing that most people believe about George Bush is that he's consistent. But I'm not sure being consistent is going to help persuade people to like his Social Security reforms. When you look at his legacy as president so far, it doesn't look real good. He turned the worlds biggest surplus into the worlds biggest deficit. He ignored the warnings about bin Laden, who is - still free. We went to war in Iraq on bad intelligence. Medicare reform is a failure. Taxes are up, the dollar is down. The flat worlders want to control the schools. And the government wants to put tracking chips (RFIDs) in federally issued ID cards to spy on everything we do.

So - do we want Bush to be consistent with his past when it comes to Social Security? I don't think so! I think we should put it off another four years and focus on paying off the national debt. I don't think we can afford to risk Social Security with someone who has a bad track record.

Bush says: Social Security Trust Fund is Fiction

Letter to the Editor

Bush atated today that the Social Security Trust Fund was a fiction, saying that it's just an IOU. That's because he took all the money and gave it away to his billionaire friends in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Under Clinton we had a surplus and we were paying off the borrowing left by the previous Bush and Reagan administrations. What is Bush's solution - more borrowing. This time he wants to borrow money and gamble it in the stock market.

I remember the good old days when Republicans wanted a balanced budget amendment and at least gave lip service to fiscal responsibility. Bush's statement that the Trust Fund is fiction means that he borrowed the money and he's not paying it back. Bush claims that the Democrats don't have any ideas on how to fix Social Security - but that's not true. The Democrat's plan was fiscal responsibility, pay back the trust fund, and run surpluses. And I think it's a better plan that borrow and spend and gamble in the stock market.

Bankruptcy Bill is Morally Bankrupt

Letter to the Editor

I find it amazing that Congress wants to write a bankruptcy bill that penalizes consumers to the benefit of credit card companies. It is so much in favor of corporations that credit card companies can take away your child support payments! They should change the Declaration of Independence from :"We the People" to "We the Corporations". And they are doing this at a time when the national debt is bringing the entire nation into bankruptcy. If I were rewriting the bankruptcy laws I would make members of Congress personally responsible for paying the national debt and take everything they own if they can't pay. Instead we are becoming slaves to the fascist state!

Unix File Permissions Suck

I love Unix. I have several Linux servers and when it comes down to it - there is no other OS to use for Web and Email servers. (BSD, Macs and other Unix OS's are of course included) But in many was the Unix community is hopelessly stuck in the past. And one of many examples of this is the Unix file permissions. Hopelessly primitive - and so entrenched in the minds of the Unix community that you can't even get then to comprehend anything beyond the limitations they are used to.

My networking experience started with Novell servers and DOS workstations. Novell Netware - as of version 3 - had a rich set of file permissions that allowed for fine grained access permissions. Over the years I started working with Windows which had far less permissions. This was a big step down from Netware - but the real step down was going form Windows down to Linux.

Linux permission are so primitive that it amazes me that they can be of much use at all. Creating security to protect one user from another is nearly impossible. The rules are so primative as to verge on insanity - yet - when discussion this with Unix heads - they just don't get it.

Unix is built on the concept of one owner and one group for each file or directory. In fact a directory or folder is like a file that contains a list of other files and directories. So permissions to read or write files have no relationship to creating and deleting files because the creating and deleting are controlled by permissions on the folder.

In Unix - there can be a file that I have no permission to either read or write - yet I can delete the file. That is insanity. But if a Unix head is confronted with this - they just don't get it that it's insane. They are brainwashed into thinking that this is somehow normal the same way that primitive religions believe throwing virgins into a volcano is normal.

In contrast - on a netware server if you have no read or write access to a file at all, then you certianly can not delete it. In fact under Netware if you can't write to a file, you can't delete the file. Now that makes sense! And - if you have no rights to the file, you can't even see it in a directory listing. If you have no rights under Netware - it's as if the file isn't there.

Fine Grained Permissions

Netware also allows for fine grained permissions. I can say - I want these three users and these three groups to have this set of permissions and it works. I can add as many individual permission sets to any file or folder I want. Unix has no such control and it makes it difficult to restrict users for security reasons while giving them enough permissions to do useful work.

Inherited Permissions

Unix has no mechanism for permission inheritence within the file system. Under netware when a user or group is given permissions to a folder - those permission apply by default to all files and directories under that folder. And one can control what is inherited through setting inherited rights masks. Unix has nothing like this. In Unix - if I create a file in someone else's directories I have to run chown on it to give that person permission to access it. Under Netware - or Windows - they already have those permissions.

Case Sensitive File Names

Another example of unix cult thinking - case sensitive file names suck - are user unfriendly - and create problems maintaining the system It puts the burden on the user to get the case exactly right. Windows is supperior in that you can store file names in mixed case but you don't have to get it exactly right to match the file. But Unix heads will never agree with you because it requires change and inspite of the fact that they are geniuses - they are among the most resistent to change of any group of people I've ever met.

Unix could be Fixed

You can get Netware and Windows like permissions under Linux. What you can do is run Samba and then mount samba shares locally in order to get windows like access. There is also a netware emulator that runs under Linux that gove linux the ability to pretend to be a netware server. So Linux could do the job if the developers would get out of the cult mind and start thinking outside the box.

Conclusion

Linux needs to be forked in a way that creates a Unix like OS with the ease of use of Windows. In order to do that there needs to be fundamental changes in the design concepts where ease of use is one of the most imporant factors. Unix comes from a time where ever byte and every CPU cycle was important and small and simple for the programmer was most important. But we live in a different world now where delivering power to the end user is most important and we have lots of processing power and lots of memory.

What needs to be done is - let the computer be smarter so that the users can move on to higher level work. File permissions need to be fine grained and easy to use. Right now the Linux community is as boxed in by acient code as Windows is processor bound. It's time for Linux to awaken and get a new vision for the future and make a break with the past.

Not trying to be a bash Unix guy here - but to ignore the problem is to ignore reality. And Linux isn't a religion for me. It's a tool that I want to see improve.

National Press Club Brings back jeff Gannon

He's Back! Jeff Gannon / James Guckert is back at the National Press Club.

Yes, the same day that the prestigious Washington, D.C., journalism organization plans to present a lunch talk by former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, it will also allow the former White House reporter/escort to be on a panel discussing bloggers and online journalism.

Jesus - this guy is talking about real journalists like me? First he's a fake national corrispondent. Now he's a fake blogger and online journalist. No - this guy is a republican paid fraud.

Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, resigned his job with the conservative Talon News last month after it was revealed he had used a pseudonym, had little journalism background, and had ties to male escort Web sites.

It wasn't ties to male escort sites. He owned gay male porn sites and advertized himself as a gay male whore.

Still, Press Club leaders will include Gannon on the panel April 8 that includes Wonkette.com editor Ana Marie Cox, National Journal's John Stanton, and others. Gannon has been asked on numerous occasions about charges that he worked as a prostitute, and has refused to deny them.

Gannon told E&P today that he always considered himself a legitimate journalist, and "perhaps their invitation is recognition of that."

It is in recognition that the rest of the journalists there are whores too. They are merely Republican surrogates that report the news the Neocons write for them.

Press Club President Rick Dunham, who also covers the White House for BusinessWeek, called Gannon "a figure in the news" who is involved in an important journalistic issue.

And they say bloggers have no journalistic standards!

"The panel came together because we wanted to discuss some issues that came about from the Gannon case," said Mike Madden, a Gannett News Service reporter and a member of the Press Club's Professional Affairs committee, which is organizing the free event. "So we thought, why not try to get him?"

The issues they should be discussing is why they are covering up for him and trying to legitimize this fraud. The real story is why there is no story.

Gannon's ability to gain access to regular daily White House briefings, despite not being able to obtain a permanent "hard pass" or a congressional press pass, sparked new discussions among reporters and White House staff about who should be granted regular access.

There is a simple system when it comes to White House access. You have to sell your soul to the Devil.

"The idea was talking about these issues and who should be allowed to set up shop [as a legitimate journalist]," Madden told E&P. "It is not intended to be a forum for [Gannon] to present his side unchallenged. It is going to be moderated and there will be others on the panel."

As if these guys are going to tell us who is a legitimate journalist.

When asked if giving Gannon a spot on the panel wrongly legitimizes him as a journalist, Madden disagreed. "It depends on how you look at it," he said. "He is there because the panel is presumably going to talk mostly about his case. He was, in large part, the central figure in the case that got us interested in the topic."

Maybe they sould invite O. J. Sompson to a women's conference to speak on domestic violence?

Dunham said "journalists should be given a chance to question him." Reminded that many reporters had interviewed Gannon in the past month, Dunham still believed his presence would be good for the event. "I want us to be on the news," he said. "I think it is better to have people ask any question they can ask."

The Press Club's Web site, however, does not tout the event as focusing on Gannon but rather as a discussion about the differences between "bloggers" and "journalists." In other words, it is a journalism panel, not a press conference featuring, say, a politician or author in the news.

There is not different between bloggers and journalists. The issue is the difference between the Washing Press Corpse and journalists.

John Aravosis at Americablog, which highlighted the Press Club event on Monday, wrote: "What is GannonGuckert doing there at all? Like he's an expert on the difference between blogging and journalism? How so? He thinks journalism means parroting press releases and transcripts. As for blogging, again, he started a so-called blog 3 weeks ago and now he's representative of all bloggers?"

John Aravosis at Americablog should be there instead of Guckert! John is the blogger that EXPOSED Guckert as a fraud. So instead of inviting the journalist to speak - they invite the fraud!

Gannon told E&P he "thinks it is a good opportunity for me to speak to issues related to bloggers." He also added that he was, "trying to stay out there where people can see me."

The above picture will help people see you. You're no more a blogger that you are a White House corrispondent.

Dunham hopes to have the panel covered by C-SPAN, but said no final decision by the cable channel had been made.

"There has been a passing thunderstorm of interest in this," said Julie Schoo, who handles logistics for the press club, but she did not have details of how many people have signed up to attend.