Liez, Skaamz, aand Aafektaeshanz

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
KBS Nuez Sundae Maurning eeritaetad me toodae, so I ternd it auf.
+
Ferst, a leed segmant wuz about Lin "Cháe.nee", wief uv Dik "Cháe.nee". Thair iz no such persan. Tha maan's naem iz properle pranounst chée.nee. Aaz Wikipeedeeya sez:

Aultho hiz laast naem iz yuezhuewale pranounst [Internaashanal Fanetik Alfabet rendering, then] (chAYnee) [cháe.nee], tha Vies Prezidant himself aand hiz faamile pranouns it aaz [IPA rendering] (chEEnee) [chée.nee].

So hwen a nuez aurganizaeshan telz us it iz cháe.nee , thae or lieying tu us. Hou kaan yu reeli on the aakyarase uv eneetthing thae sae if thae kaan't eevan get tha naem riet? I went tu hi skuel witth a gerl huez naem wuz speld "Cheney" aand pranounst chée.nee, aand Lon Chaney wuz a maejer stor uv horer mueveez hwen I wuz yung, so I haav never understood the insistans uv meedeeya on mispranounsing this politishan'z name.
+
Aaz I heer tha staure, Cheene wuz aulwaez noen aaz chée.nee until he kaem tu Woshingtan, hwairapon sum peepool stortad kauling him cháe.nee, aand he didan't karekt them. He wuz maur kansernd about pouwer thaan faamile dignite. I tue haav a sernaem (Schoonmaker) thaat iz aufan mispranounst. But I karekt peepool ("Skúen.mae.ker") hwen I aam intervyued, aand meedeeya aaksept thaat karekshan, yuezhuewale witth a litool apolaje. Wood meedeeya kaul tha Vies Prezidant cháe.nee if he abjektad and deemaandad thae stop mispranounsing hiz naem? I doen't tthingk so. But if I noe, aand Wikipeedeeya noez, thaat tha faamile naem iz pranounst chée.nee, hwi duzan't KBS, ABK, aand evre uther frigin' aural meedeeyam in tha Naeshan noe thaat? If thae du noe but nunthales mispranouns it, hou du thae justifi thaat?
+
Sekand, poelz aaz tu tha leederz in tha prezidenshal 'haursraes' sho peepool lieying shaemlasle tu poelsterz, aaz tho moest Demakraats hu haav a preferans reele wont tha frijid bich Hilere Klinton, aand aaz tho maur Reepublikans wont a proe-gae, proe-abaurshan NU YAURK SITE politishan thaan ene uv the uther kaandidaets, hwairaaz tha bulk uv tha Reepublikan pouwer baes is aantee-gae, aantee-abaurshan, aand aantee-Nu Yaurk Site. So hwi theez poel numberz?
+
I haav aulrede pointad out thaat a lot uv Demakraats wont tu poot Bil Klintan intu tha Hwiet Hous faur a ttherd term, aand tthingk thaat thaat iz hwut thae wil reele be duewing if thae voet faur Hilere. Hwi wood eneewun wont Bil Klintan baak in tha Hwiet Hous? Wuz hiz raen a goeldan aej? Not faur tha Florida faamile uv Elián Gonzalez, it wuzan't. Reemember thaat uther frijid bich, Jaanat Reeno, aurdering a SWOT teem intu a prievat hous witth masheengunz pointad aat Kyueban-Amairikanz tu steel a chieyald frum tha saefte aand freedam uv the Yoonietad Staets aand send him tu Kaastro's Komyoonist teerane? Oq, tha good oeld daez! I doen't tthingk so.
+
Beesiedz, peepool hu tthingk a voet faur Hilere iz a voet faur Bil miet be seereeyasle mistaekan. Faur aul thae noe, the instant Hilere sets foot in tha Hwiet Hous, her lauyerz wil fieyal divaurs paeperz aand she wil taus him out uv tha Hwiet Hous in a vere publik hyuemileeyaeshan tu get eevan faur the hyuemileeyaeshan he subjektad her tu witth hiz hieperpublisiezd adultere skaandal witth a Juewish intern huez naem I du not kair tu menshan. It wood be eevan funeeyer if Hilere then muevd in a lezbeeyan luver ("luvas"?) she haaz bin hieding in a klozat sumhwair!
+
But hwi wood Reepublikanz preetend tu wont Ruedolf Jueleeyone? Iz it beekauz thae sens the autthoritaireeyan streek in hiz kaarakter, aand thae wont tu kantinyu tha dounwerd slied uv this Reepublik intu diktaetership? I livd in Jueleeyone'z Nu Yaurk aand kauld him "Muesaleeyone" beekauz uv hiz diktataureeyal tendanseez. Maebe tha Reepublikan Riet haets tha freedam thae keep proeklaeming thair deevoeshan tu, in "pratest tue much" faashan. But du thae reele wont a proe-gae aand proe-abaurshan diktaeter frum Nu Yaurk Site, tha moest haetad site in tha Naeshan? "Hiemeetoun"? A site apaarantle maur foran thaan Amairikan? I doen't bileev it.
+
Naur du I bileev thaat a kuntre thaat haaz haad egzaaktle wun Kaathalik Prezidant iz about tu eelekt a Maurman, member uv a kult thaat moest Amairikanz aaktivle distrust.
+
Uv kaurs it iz posibool thaat aantee-blaak Demakraats or wiling tu sae thae sapaurt a wooman thae doen't sapaurt beekauz thae wont a kuver faur not wonting a blaak maan. Peepool eeger tu kantinyu aantee-blaak hieyering praaktisaz haav bin aul tue haape tu proeklaem wiman aan "aprest mienorite" so thae kood hieyer hwiet wiman — in preferans tu blaak men — aand stil preetend tu be aadvaansing soeshal justis bi fieting "diskriminaeshan". Maebe thaat's hwut's haapaning heer. If tha laast refyuej uv tha raesist iz tu poez aaz a liberal bi voeting faur a hwiet woman, maebe Hilere wil win aafter aul. But I doen't tthingk so.
+
Aand perhaps it's posibool thaat Reepublikanz hu wood never voet faur a Maurman or unwiling tu be held tu akount faur thair "reelijas bigatre", so giv poelsterz a palitikale karekt aanser thaat kanseelz thair reel feelingz. I du bileev thaat, beekauz studeez haav shoen thaat peepool li tu poelsterz if thae tthingk thaat hwut thae reele feel wood ekspoez them tu disaprueval, frum the persan poeling them, not leest. Thus poelsterz sumtiemz poez chek-kweschanz, liek "Du yu tthingk yaur naeberz or wiling tu voet faur a Maurman / wooman / blaak maan / proe-gae Nu Yaurker?" Mene peepool wood be wiling tu prajekt ontu thair naeberz /uther rezidants uv thair site thair oen (soeshale disapruevd) aatituedz, so such chek-kweschanz get a maur reelieyabool reezult. Haav meedeeya in faakt aaskt such kweschanz? If so, thae'v dun a vere good job uv not reepaurting them.
+
Ttherd, Chorlz Ozgood, yueneek amung maejer onskreen aangkerz, stieyalz tha yeer "Twente o sevan". Hwut iz raung witth him? No wun els sez thaat, naur shood. "Tue tthouzand sevan" iz tha staanderd wae uv saeying this yeer'z naem. It's not aaz tho hiz bizor misyues iz sumhou shaurter, aur maatthamaatikale maur aakyarat. Boetth faurmyoolaeshanz or sevan silaboolz. No saeving. So hwi wood Ozgood preefer the ideeyotik aafektaeshan "Twente o sevan"? "Tue tthouzand sevan" iz maatthamaatikale aakyarat, aand reemiendz us uv tha laung histare uv Western sivilizaeshan aand ouwer plaes in it. Tha bizor misyues Ozgood preeferz abliteraets histare aand poezaz numberz in meeninglas termz. Perhaaps I shood riet tu tha Prezidant uv KBS Nuez tu aask him tu soopres Ozgood'z afensiv misyues.
+
Eevenchuewale, "twente" probable wil seem beter, but sertanle not beefaur 2010, aand maebe not beefaur 2015 or, espeshale, 2020. Miend yu, "twente" aaz agenst "tue tthouzand" wil aulwaez be oenle a wun-silabool saeving, tho in foeneemz (indivijuewal speech soundz), it iz a taad shaurter: T/W/E/N/T/EE vs. T/UE/TTH/OU/Z/A/N/D, 6 foeneemz vs. 8. Iz thaat reele so draastik a saeving aaz tu worant reekaasting a kompreehensibool number intu a hojpoj? I doen't tthingk so.
+
"19" wuz a reel shaurtaning aaz agenst "wun tthouzand nien hundrad", 2 silaboolz vs. 6; N/IE/N/T/EE/N (6 foeneemz) vs. W/U/N/TTH/OU/Z/A/N/D/N/IE/N/H/U/N/D/R/A/D (19, intrastingle). Thaat wuz wertth duewing. Saeving 1 silabool aand 2 foeneemz? I doen't tthingk so.
+
Oeld Skaamz Stil Werking. Sum nuez proegraam (I doen't reekaul hwich, I woch so mene) the uther dae reekountad tha tail uv sum stuepid wooman hu fel faur wun uv thoez foene chek skaamz frum Aafrika, bi wae uv alerting peepool tu tha nu aantee-fraud websiet FaekCheks.aurg (hwich looks tu be a graet siet, hwich adresaz maur skaamz thaan just faek cheks). She shood su her ISP aand eemail pravieder faur not waurning her (aand evreewun els). On Februewere 21st, I sed heer vere publikle thaat evre ISP aand eemail servis shood waurn evre subskrieber on sienup aand aat leest wuns per yeer theairaafter about tha koman skaamz beeying run veeya eemail. I wood aad, nou, that evre ISP aand eemail pravieder shood (be reekwieyerd bi lau tu) poot a noetis on tha skreen thaat lists eemailz: "Never send mune tu straenjerz yu meet veeya eemail." Tha werd "Never" shood be a klikabool lingk tu a waurning paej thaat sez sumtthing uv graeter lengktth but eezile reedabool in a fyu minits, faur instans:

If yu didan't enter a lotere, yu didan't win a lotere. Thair iz no such tthing aaz aan Internet lotere thaat drauz naemz frum eemail aadressaz.

No wun hu haaz never met yu iz goewing tu trust yu witth milyanz uv dolerz thae need tu get out uv ene kuntree, aand let yu keep a kut. If yu wer aakchuewale tu koe-kanspieyer in reemueving fundz frum a kuntre ileegale, yu wood be subjekt tu arest, prosakyueshan, aand mene yeerz uv imprizanmant. But thair iz no such faurchan waeting faur yu, aand yu wil not be kut in on a windfaul out uv tha kleer blu ski.

No lajitimat biznaz needz a straenjer tu reeseev cheks aur mune aurderz, tu kaash them heer, then send tha proeseedz abraud aafter taeking a kut faur themself. [Not a gramaatikal mistaek: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Singular_they.] Evre lajitimat biznaz kaan reedeem ene faurm uv paemant frum ene port uv tha werld veeya merchant baangk aat perfaktle reezanabool kamershal raets, aand guvernmants du not impoez kanfiskataure feez apon traansferz uv fundz intu thair teritaure. Eeven if thae did, if yu wer tu help sumwun eevaed lajitimat taaksaz, yu wood be gilte uv a kriem thaat kood send yu tu prizan. But thair or no such taaksaz on such fundz, beekauz thair or no such funds.

If yu or a lajitimat air in a wil, yu wil never haav tu pae a fee tu reeseez yaur inheritans. If yu wer tu poez aaz an air tu a faurchan yu or not entietoold tu, yu wood be gilte uv a kriem thaat kood send yu tu prizan. But thair iz no such wil and thair iz no such faurchan.

Stok tips sent veeya eemail, espeshale witthin tekst thaat iz kaamaflozhd witth ekstra spaesaz aand gorbaj kaarakterz (#, @, !, &) tu get paast spaam filterz, or NEVER lajitimat. Straenjerz du not wont yu tu get rich. Thae wont tu get rich, frum yu.

If a straenjer auferz yu tthouzandz uv dolerz in goeld dust aat aan eksepshanal pries, thair iz no goeld, aand the oenle dust iz beetween yaur eerz if yu faul faur thaat.

Never go tu a baangking institueshan frum a lingk witthin aan eemail, but aulwaez go tu it tthru tha websiet yu aurdinerile yuez.

Aulwaez chek ene hieperlingk witthin aan eemail bi huvering yaur kerser oever it tu maek shuer thaat the ostensibool tekst aand the aakchuewal paatth thaat kliking wil set yu on or iedentikal in evre kaarakter. Tha vere ferst set uv kaarakterz aafter the "http://" shood be tha naem uv tha kumpane yu noe, in egzaaktle tha faurm yu noe, not diferant bi so much aaz wun kaarakter. If tha teksts in the eemail aand the aakchuewal paath difer, DU NOT KLIK. And if no tekst apeerz hwen yu roel yaur mous oever a lingk, DU NOT KLIK.

Lajitimat chaariteez du not aproech straenjerz veeya eemail beging them tu bie Bieboolz faur Aafrika aur saev sum chieyald in tha Ttherd Werld frum dizeez. Deel oenle witth repyootabool chaariteez. If yu doen't noe if a chaarite iz repyootabool, go tu http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp, http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html, aur http://www.guidestar.org/ tu chek, aand go tu a pertikyooler chaarite'z websiet oenle veeya a lingk aat a trustwerhe websiet, aur tiep tha paath nu yaurself.

No straenjer dieying frum sum dred dizeez iz goewing tu send yu milyanz uv dolerz faur yaur faevarit chaariteez, aand let yu keep a kut, hwether thae or a reesant konvert tu Kristeeyaanite aur not.

Lajitimat biznazaz du not send out unsalisitad eemail. Thaat iz "spaam", aand ileegal.

Lajitimat formaseez du not send out spaam. Thae haav plente uv kustamerz frum werd-uv-moutth aand lajitimat aadvertiezing. Mene Internet "formaseez" send out boegas "medikaeshanz" thaat aat best du nutthing aand aat werst kaan aakchuewale be daenjeras.
+
Hyueman Groetth Haurmoen (HGH), eevan hwen reel, must be yuezd under a fizishan'z suepervizhan, aand thair iz no wae tu noe hwut a boegas Internet "formase" iz aakchuewale sending out laeboold aaz HGH. Saem witth Boetoks, saev thaat Boetoks iz, eevan hwen reel, a poizan, tha poizan reesponsibool faur bochoolizam, a freekwantle faetal maalade. It shood be aadministerd oenle bi a prafeshanal.

Thair iz no such tthing aaz a peenis-enlorjmant pil aur dieyatere suplamant. Yu miet aaz wel tthro yaur mune doun a wishing wel. Aakchuewale, tthroewing yaur mune doun a wishing wel iz saefer, beekauz eevan if sumtthing shood ariev in tha mail — tho thair iz no gaarante thaat eneetthing aat aul wil be sent wuns thae haav yaur mune — it kood be ekstreemle daenjeras tu injest.

NEVER giv out tha deetailz uv yaur baangk akount tu straenjerz oever the Internet. Yu mae not noe hou thae kood posible misyuez it if yu doen't, faur instans, aulso giv them yaur PIN, but thae mae noe hou tu gaen aakses aand taek yaur mune, espeshale if yu aulso pravied them infermaeshan such aaz yaur Soeshal Sakyuerite number — hwich yu shood gord kairfoole, tu the ekstent posibool. Houwever, reeyaliez thaat thair or waez thaat ttheevz kaan fiend Soeshal Sakyuerite numberz, so du not giv them eenuf infermaeshan witth hwich tu asoeseeyaet yaur baangking infermaeshan witth yaur Soeshal Sakyuerite number: no aadres, no foen number, no daet uv bertth — nutthing. Aur yu miet aaz wel haand them yaur wolat aand leev tha ruem.

It iz not posibool, in this breef kaushan, tu list aul tha skaamz perpatraetad oever the Internet. A good daskripshan uv sum kaan be found aat FaekCheks.aurg. In jeneral, if it soundz tue good tu be tru, yu kaan bet yaur laast doler thaat it iz tue good tu be tru. But doen't bet yaur laast doler on tha good faetth uv aan Internet skaamer. Doen't be a fuel. Doen't EVER send mune tu straenjerz hu aproech yu veeya eemail. Not $1, not $1,000. EVER.

Iz thaat so hord?
+
If thaat wooman'z ISP aand eemail servis did not du thaat, thae or paasivle koe-kanspieyering in graand ttheft frum thair sabskrieberz, aand shood be maed tu pae baak evreetthing thair sabskrieberz or deefraudad uv bi verchu uv thaat koe-kanspeerase. Maebe then we'l haav aakchuewal prosakyueshanz uv Internet skaamerz.
+
Hou difikult kood it be tu prosakyuet theez skaamerz? Thae haav tu be reechabool. Sum paleesmen aand uther lau-enfaursmant peepool must reeseev theez skaamz, skaatershot aaz thae or. Hwi kaan't Interpoel koewaurdinaet traaps tu drau theez peepool out, arest them, aand send them tu prizan faur a tthouzand yeerz aur, for beter, slies thair eevool hedz auf aand chop thair bodeez up faur ports faur deesant peepool?
+
This iz not liek malishas eemailz witth vierasaz thaat or diziend meerle tu eeraes fieyalz aur render masheenz moementerile unyuezabool. Thoez doen't need tu sho a wae tu traak doun tha peepool hu sent them. Skaamz du, beekauz reesipeeyants uv skaam eemailz need tu be aebool tu reech tha persan hu wonts mune frum them. If yu kaan fiend sumwun tu send them mune, yu kaan fiend them tu arest, flog, imprizan, aur eksakyuet.
+
Tha reeyaalite iz not thaat we kaan't du eneetthing about theez hyuej, veree-publik skaamz, but thaat Guvernmant duz not kair tu du eeneetthing about them.
+
Guvernmant sits iedle bi, aaz tho aakchuewale glaad tu se fuelz portad frum thair mune. We kaanot toleraet thaat, but must aaz a sasieyate deemaand aakshan frum yueslas guvernmants. If tha peepool nou in pouwer woen't lift a fingger tu pratekt us, let us lift ouwer finggerz aat voeting masheenz tu oust tha lot uv them.
+
If a kaandidaet faur Prezidant, Senat, Hous, Guverner, staet lejislaecher, aur distrikt aterne haaz not deeklaird hiz/her intent agresivle tu kraak doun on Internet fraud aand maalis, then tha meedeeya, aaz tha peepool'z tribyuen (thus thaat popyooler naem faur a nuezpaeper) must kanfrunt them aand aask evre singgool kaandidaet hwut thae wil du tu maek the Internet saef, not just frum sekshuewal predaterz but aulso frum tha fiskal predaterz hu li in waet aaz eelektronik hiewaemen in hyuej outlau gaangz thaat guvernmant kansents tu haav roem fre, tu rob eneewun thae kaan. Hwi iz this not a hyuej ishu in this kaampaen seezan?
+
Then agen, hwi wood it be? Tha kaandidaets doen't tauk about a lot uv tthingz tha peepool kair deeple about. Hwut haav yu herd tha kaandidaets sae about tha faurkloezher kriesis? yuezhuereeyas interest raets? kansuemer det? saev-yaur-hous-frum-faurkloezher fraud?
+
Thae woodan't eevan be tauking about yueniversal heltthkair if it weran't faur Miekal Muer'z heroewik Siko. Du we need Deto beefaur tha kaandidaets uv boetth porteez wil eevan adres tha jiegaantik deter'z prizan this kuntre haaz beekum? Skaamo beefaur eneewun adresaz tha daenjer thaat lerks in eemail? Hwi du we let politishanz get awae witth tauking endlasle about tthingz thaat doen't interest us hwiel leeving tha tthingz uv moest imeedeeyat kansern tu us kampleetle unadrest?
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,815 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Lies, Scams, and Affectations. CBS News Sunday Morning irritated me today, so I turned it off.
+
First, a lead segment was about Lynne "Cháe.nee", wife of Dick "Cháe.nee". There is no such person. The man's name is properly pronounced chée.nee. As Wikipedia says:

Although his last name is usually pronounced [IPA rendering, then] (chAYnee), the Vice President himself and his family pronounce it as [IPA rendering] (chEEnee).

So when a news organization tells us it is cháe.nee , they are lying to us. How can you rely on the accuracy of anything they say if they can't even get the name right? I went to high school with a girl whose name was spelled "Cheney" and pronounced chée.nee, and Lon Chaney was a major star of horror movies when I was young, so I have never understood the insistence of media on mispronouncing this politician's name.
+
As I hear the story, Cheney was always known as chée.nee until he came to Washington, whereupon some people started calling him cháe.nee, and he didn't correct them. He was more concerned about power than family dignity. I too have a surname (Schoonmaker) that is often mispronounced. But I correct people ("Skúen.mae.ker") when I am interviewed, and media accept that correction, usually with a little apology. Would media call the Vice President cháe.nee if he objected and demanded they stop mispronouncing his name? I don't think so. But if I know, and Wikipedia knows, that the family name is pronounced chée.nee, why doesn't CBS, ABC, and every other friggin' oral medium in the Nation know that? If they do know but nonetheless mispronounce it, how do they justify that?
+
Second, polls as to the leaders in the presidential 'horserace' show people lying shamelessly to pollsters, as tho most Democrats who have a preference really want the frigid bitch Hillary Clinton, and as tho more Republicans want a pro-gay, pro-abortion NEW YORK CITY politician than any of the other candidates, whereas the bulk of the Republican power base is anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-New York City. So why these poll numbers?
+
I have already pointed out that a lot of Democrats want to put Bill Clinton into the White House for a third term, and think that that is what they will really be doing if they vote for Hillary. Why would anyone want Bill Clinton back in the White House? Was his reign a golden age? Not for the Florida family of Elián Gonzalez, it wasn't. Remember that other frigid bitch, Janet Reno, ordering a SWAT team into a private house with machineguns pointed at Cuban-Americans to steal a child from the safety and freedom of the United States and send him to Castro's Communist tyranny? Ah, the good old days! I don't think so.
+
Besides, people who think a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill might be seriously mistaken. For all they know, the instant Hillary sets foot in the White House, her lawyers will file divorce papers and she will toss him out of the White House in a very public humiliation to get even for the humiliation he subjected her to with his hyperpublicized adultery scandal with a Jewish intern whose name I do not care to mention. It would be even funnier if Hillary then moved in a lesbian lover ("lovess"?) she has been hiding in a closet somewhere!
+
But why would Republicans pretend to want Rudolph Giuliani? Is it because they sense the authoritarian streak in his character, and they want to continue the downward slide of this Republic into dictatorship? I lived in Giuliani's New York and called him "Mussoliani" because of his dictatorial tendencies. Maybe the Republican Right hates the freedom they keep proclaiming their devotion to, in "protest too much" fashion. But do they really want a pro-gay and pro-abortion dictator from New York City, the most hated city in the Nation? "Hymietown"? A city apparently more foreign than American? I don't believe it.
+
Nor do I believe that a country that has had exactly one Catholic President is about to elect a Mormon, member of a cult that most Americans actively distrust.
+
Of course it is possible that anti-black Democrats are willing to say they support a woman they don't support because they want a cover for not wanting a black man. People eager to continue anti-black hiring practices have been all too happy to proclaim women an "oppressed minority" so they could hire white women — in preference to black men — and pretend to be advancing social justice by fiting "discrimination". Maybe that's what's happening here. If the last refuge of the racist is to pose as a liberal by voting for a white woman, maybe Hillary will win after all. But I don't think so.
+
And perhaps it's possible that Republicans who would never vote for a Mormon are unwilling to be held to account for their "religious bigotry", so give pollsters a politically correct answer that conceals their real feelings. I do believe that, because studies have shown that people lie to pollsters if they think that what they really feel would expose them to disapproval, from the person polling them, not least. Thus pollsters sometimes pose check-questions, like "Do you think your neighbors are willing to vote for a Mormon / woman / black man / pro-gay New Yorker?" Many people would be willing to project onto their neighbors/other residents of their city their own (socially disapproved) attitudes, so such check-questions get a more reliable result. Have media in fact asked such questions? If so, they've done a very good job of not reporting them.
+
Third, Charles Osgood, unique among major onscreen anchors, styles the year "Twenty oh seven". What is wrong with him? No one else says that, nor should. "Two thousand seven" is the standard way of saying this year's name. It's not as tho his bizarre misuse is somehow shorter, aur mathematically more accurate. Both formulations are seven syllables. No saving. So why would Osgood prefer the idiotic affectation "Twenty oh seven"? "Two thousand seven" is mathematically accurate, and reminds us of the long history of Western civilization and our place in it. The bizarre misuse Osgood prefers obliterates history and poses numbers in meaningless terms. Perhaps I should write to the President of CBS News to ask him to suppress Osgood's offensive misuse.
+
Eventually, "twenty" probably will seem better, but certainly not before 2010, and maybe not before 2015 or, especially, 2020. Mind you, "twenty" as against "two thousand" will always be only a one-syllable saving, tho in phonemes (individual speech sounds), it is a tad shorter: T/W/E/N/T/EE vs. T/UE/TTH/OU/Z/A/N/D, 6 phonemes vs. 8. Is that really so drastic a saving as to warrant recasting a comprehensible number into a hodgepodge? I don't think so.
+
"19" was a real shortening as against "one thousand nine hundred", 2 syllables vs. 6; N/IE/N/T/EE/N (6 phonemes) vs. W/U/N/TTH/OU/Z/A/N/D/N/IE/N/H/U/N/D/R/E/D (19, interestingly). That was worth doing. Saving 1 syllable and 2 phonemes? I don't think so.
+
Old Scams Still Working. Some news program (I don't recall which, I watch so many) the other day recounted the tale of some stupid woman who fell for one of those phony check scams from Africa, by way of alerting people to the new anti-fraud website FakeChecks.org (which looks to be a great site, which addresses more scams than just fake checks). She should sue her ISP and email provider for not warning her (and everyone else). On February 21st, I said here that every ISP and email service should warn every subscriber on signup and at least once per year thereafter about the common scams being run via email. I would add, now, that every ISP and email provider should (be required by law to) put a notice on the screen that lists emails: "Never send money to strangers you meet via email." The word "Never" should be a clickable link to a warning page that says something of greater length but easily readable in a few minutes, for instance:

If you didn't enter a lottery, you didn't win a lottery. There is no such thing as an Internet lottery that draws names from email addresses.

No one who has never met you is going to trust you with millions of dollars they need to get out of any country, and let you keep a cut. If you were actually to co-conspire in removing funds from a country illegally, you would be subject to arrest, prosecution ,and many years of imprisonment. But there is no such fortune waiting for you, and you will not be cut in on a windfall out of the clear blue sky.

No legitimate business needs a stranger to receive checks or money orders, to cash them here, then send the proceeds abroad after taking a cut for themself. [Not a grammatical mistake: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Singular_they.] Every legitimate business can redeem any form of payment from any part of the world via merchant bank at perfectly reasonable commercial rates, and governments do not impose confiscatory fees upon transfers of funds into their territory. Even if they did, if you were to help someone evade legitimate taxes, you would be guilty of a crime that could send you to prison. But there are no such taxes on such funds, because there are no such funds.

If you are a legitimate heir in a will, you will never have to pay a fee to receive your inheritance. If you were to pose as an heir to a fortune you are not entitled to, you would be guilty of a crime that could send you tu prison. But there is no such will and there is no such fortune.

Stock tips sent via email, especially within text that is camouflaged with extra spaces and garbage characters (#, @, !, &) to get past spam filters, are NEVER legitimate. Strangers do not want you to get rich. They want to get rich, from you.

If a stranger offers you thousands of dollars in gold dust at an exceptional price, there is no gold, and the only dust is between your ears if you fall for that.

Never go to a banking institution from a link within an email, but always go to it thru the website you ordinarily use.

Always check any hyperlink within an email by hovering your cursor over it to make sure that the ostensible text and the actual path that clicking will set you on are identical in every character. The very first set of characters after the "http://" should be the name of the company you know, in exactly the form you know, not different by so much as one character. If the text in the email and the actual path differ, DO NOT CLICK. And if no text appears when you roll your mouse over a link, DO NOT CLICK.

Legitimate charities do not approach strangers via email begging them to buy Bibles for Africa or save some child in the Third World from disease. Deal only with reputable charities. If you don't know if a charity is reputable, go to www.give.org/reports/index.asp, http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp, or http://www.guidestar.org/ to check, and go to a particular charity's website only via a link at a trustworthy website, or type the path new yourself.

No stranger dying from some dread disease is going to send you millions of dollars for your favorite charities, and let you keep a cut, whether they are a recent convert to Christianity or not.

Legitimate businesses do not send out unsolicited email. That is "spam", and illegal.

Legitimate pharmacies do not send out spam. They have plenty of customers from word-of-mouth and legitimate advertising. Many Internet "pharmacies" send out bogus "medications" that at best do nothing and at worst can actually be dangerous.
+
Human Growth Hormone (HGH), even when real, must be used under a physician's supervision, and there is no way to know what a bogus Internet "pharmacy" is actually sending out labeled as HGH. Same with Botox, save that Botox is, even when real, a poison, the poison responsible for botulism, a frequently fatal malady. It should be administered only by a professional.

There is no such thing as a penis-enlargement pill or dietary supplement. You might as well throw your money down a wishing well. Actually, throwing your money down a wishing well is safer, because even if something should arrive in the mail — tho there is no guarantee that anything at all will be sent once they have your money — it could be extremely dangerous to ingest.

NEVER give out the details of your bank account to strangers over the Internet. You may not know how they could possibly misuse it if you don't, for instance, also give them your PIN, but they may know how to gain access and take your money, especially if you also provide them information such as your Social Security number — which you should guard carefully, to the extent possible. However, realize that there are ways that thieves can find Social Security numbers, so do not give them enuf information with which to associate your banking information with your Social Security number: no address, no phone number, no date of birth — nothing. Or you might as well hand them your wallet and leave the room.

It is not possible, in this brief caution, to list all the scams perpetrated over the Internet. A good description of some can be found at FakeChecks.org. In general, if it sounds too good to be true, you can bet your last dollar that it is too good to be true. But don't bet your last dollar on the good faith of an Internet scammer. Don't be a fool. Don't EVER send money to strangers who approach you via email. Not $1, not $1,000. EVER.

Is that so hard?
+
If that woman's ISP and email service did not do that, they are passively co-conspiring in grand theft from their subscribers, and should be made to pay back everything their subscribers are defrauded of by virtue of that co-conspiracy. Maybe then we'll have actual prosecutions of Internet scammers.
+
How difficult could it be to prosecute these scammers? They have to be reachable. Some policemen and other law-enforcement people must receive these scams, scattershot as they are. Why can't Interpol coordinate traps to draw these people out, arrest them, and send them to prison for a thousand years or, far better, slice their evil heads off and chop their bodies up for parts for decent people?
+
This is not like malicious emails with viruses that are designed merely to erase files or render machines momentarily unusable. Those don't need to show a way to track down the people who sent them. Scams do, because recipients of scam emails need to be able to reach the person who wants money from them. If you can find someone to send them money, you can find them to arrest, flog, imprison, or execute.
+
The reality is not that we can't do anything about these huge, very-public scams, but that Government does not care to do anything about them.
+
Government sits idly by, as tho actually glad to see fools parted from their money. We cannot tolerate that, but must as a society demand action from useless governments. If the people now in power won't lift a finger to protect us, let us lift our fingers at voting machines to oust the lot of them.
+
If a candidate for President, Senate, House, Governor, state legislature, or district attorney has not declared his/her intent aggressively to crack down on Internet fraud and malice, then the media, as the people's tribune (thus that popular name for a newspaper) must confront them and ask every single candidate what they will do to make the Internet safe, not just from sexual predators but also from the fiscal predators who lie in wait as electronic highwaymen in huge outlaw gangs that government consents to have roam free, to rob anyone they can. Why is this not a huge issue in this campaign season?
+
Then again, why would it be? The candidates don't talk about a lot of things the people care deeply about. What have you heard the candidates say about the foreclosure crisis? usurious interest rates? consumer debt? save-your-house-from-foreclosure fraud?
+
They wouldn't even be talking about universal healthcare if it weren't for Michael Moore's heroic Sicko. Do we need Debto before the candidates of both parties will even address the gigantic debtor's prison this country has become? Scammo before anyone addresses the danger that lurks in email? Why do we let politicians get away with talking endlessly about things that don't interest us while leaving the things of most immediate concern to us completely unaddressed?
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:59 PM