sparrow chat

It may not have happened to you yet, but if not, it probably will before long.

You’re at your computer, happily browsing known and reputable websites, when suddenly – as if from nowhere – your screen becomes a mass of warning flashes and exclamation marks telling you your precious machine is infected with all sorts of nasty viruses, worms, and other creepy crawlies, burrowing their way into your hard drive.

These webpages are cleverly designed to mimic the Windows OS screens you see when you click on “My Documents”, or “Control Panel”, or similar.

Before continuing, let me say this: if you are using your computer on the internet without reputable anti-virus software installed, then you deserve to get taken for a ride by the latest batch of “scareware” scammers presently polluting the worldwide web.

If you do have antivirus software and get hit in the manner described above, the first rule is not to panic. That’s exactly what these scum want you to do. In a state of panic, human beings react, and the first reaction is “Oh, my God, how do I get rid of these?” At which point a helpful banner will appear on your screen inviting you to a website with software for you to download that will deal with the plague of infections ostensibly bugging your machine.

DO NOT GO THERE. You will be drawn into paying around $50 for software that does nothing. After all, there’s really nothing for it to do, except persuade you to part with your hard-earned cash. No viruses, no worms, no creepy-crawlies.

The golden rule in situations like this, is: don’t react ; instead, respond.

First, check in the very top-left of the page. Is this really a Windows OS screen, or is Internet Explorer, or some other browser icon, still telling you it’s a webpage? Almost certainly, it is a webpage cleverly disguised as an OS screen.

At this point, “X” out of the page, and any banners, instructions, or other devices still littering your screen, and note which webpage you were perusing when this intrusion occurred.

In my case it was the TimesOnline.com.

Finally, use your own anti-virus software to run a full system scan on your machine. Having done so, (you’ll almost certainly be given a clean bill of health) sit back and congratulate yourself on not falling for this latest ruse developed by the scumbags of the internet.

Because their victims react, rather than respond, these scum are netting around $10,000 a day.^[1]

^{[1] “‘Scareware’ scams trick searchers” BBC, March 23rd 2009}

Filed under: Internet filth

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Recently I wrote of a British Member of Parliament, George Galloway, who was hauled before a US Congressional committee back in 2005 over allegations under the Iraqi Oil for Food program, and who magnificently wiped the floor with them.^[1]

Today, the press is reporting that the Canadian government has barred George Galloway from entering Canada – he was about to take a lecture tour of the country – at the request of the Canadian Jewish Defence League.^[2]

The right-wing conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney (below)……

…….called Mister Galloway an…

……infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving ‘financial support’ to Hamas, a terrorist organization banned in Canada.”

“Infandous” is actually a word, meaning “too odious to be expressed or mentioned”, though its not certain if the infandous Jason Kenney knew what he was saying, or if he simply confused ‘infamous’ and ‘scandalous’.

Jason Kenney’s accusation is totally unfounded. Galloway’s relationship with Hamas has been one of providing aid to Palestinians. In fact, it’s strange that Kenney has the gall to make such accusations about Galloway, considering that in 2006 Kenney attended a rally of the exiled Mujaheedin-e-Khalq, described by CTV as:

an armed Iranian rebel group formally designated as a terror group by the governments of Canada, the United States and the European Union.”^[3]

According to a statement on the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada website, the Mujaheedin-e-Khalq believe that:

Islamic socialism can only be attained through the destruction of the existing regime and the elimination of Western influence

and

To achieve this Islamic ideology, the use of physical force, armed struggle or jihad is necessary.”

This organization has been reportedly linked to Saddam Hussein, the PLO, and the Taliban.

Presumably, Jason Kenney just went along to watch?

The most appalling of many diabolical aspects of this news, is that a wealthy and obviously powerful Jewish group is able to control the government of a vast nation by a simple click of its fingers.

Whatever one’s opinion of George Galloway and his views he’s not a terrorist, he is no threat to the security of Canada, and he is certainly not a member of any illegal organization.

The question to be asked is how long Canadians will continue to tolerate a government obviously under the control of a foreign nation – namely Israel?

^{[1] Lest We Forget” Sparrow Chat, March 18th 2009}

^{[2] “Galloway in vow to fight Canada ban” The Scotsman, March 21st 2009}

^{[3] “Tory MP attended rally for group on terror list” CTV, August 24th 2006}

Filed under: Double, double standards

Posted under Sparrow Chat

The journey home from school today was not a bus driver’s success story. All four of the younger Roberts kids were back after a three day detention for misbehaving in school.

Jethro, the eldest, and Izaiah – suffering anger management problems – sit opposite the driver; Treanna, their sister, sits behind the driver, and little Azariah – with chipmunk agility and a shorter attention span than any amoeba – is squeezed in between two fifth graders with orders to sit on him, if necessary, rather than let him out of his seat.

The root of the troubles had nothing whatever to do with the Roberts family. Sharreta Robinson, a pleasant, friendly, girl who sits near the back of the bus, and a fifth grade boy, Keyshawn Attwell, a friend of Jethro’s, had been engaged in shy conversation at every given opportunity for the last three days. Keyshawn was new to the bus, and the driver was quick to notice a relationship developing between the two.

It made a pleasant change to see two kids enjoying each other’s company. Usually, the bus reverberated with continual bickering and name-calling, occasionally erupting into more serious fistycuffs, so he was happy to turn a blind eye when Sharetta slipped across the bus aisle to a vacant seat behind Keyshawn, better to hear what he was saying above the cacophony of thirty-eight, over-excited, voices.

No doubt all would have been well had not Kaitlin Sanders, a plump and loud-mouthed sixth grade girl sitting across from Jethro, not also had her eye on Keyshawn. Sharreta’s illegal move to another seat was not lost on Kaitlin, who immediately began making loud disparaging remarks about Jethro’s parentage, for no better purpose than to gain Keyshawn’s attention.

Jethro, of course, responded by calling Kaitlin a “fat, lying, bitch,” whereupon the two ended up in the aisle, arms flailing, and emitting language never heard in a church vestry.

The driver’s reaction was to stop the bus, separate the two, then charge up and down the aisle, much like the proverbial bull in a china shop, yelling at the remaining thirty-six kids to settle back down in their seats before they all got referrals.

The Roberts family alighted at the next stop, as did Keyshawn. Jethro still muttered to himself on the injustice of getting a referral for no more than defending his honor, and the meanness of school bus drivers in general.

Kaitlin Sanders sulked for the rest of the journey, knowing her referral meant she would miss the next school field trip. Both she and Sharreta left the bus at the final stop.

The driver watched as they walked away up the street, arm in arm, laughing and joking about nothing in particular.

Filed under: School bus

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Every nation has the finest, most moral, army on Earth. Even Adolf Hitler praised his troops for the honorable manner in which they fought in France and Poland. The US military in Afghanistan, we are constantly told by the media, consists of a fine bunch of brave men and women doing their duty for their country.

Usually, those on the losing side have a different tale to tell.

Even prior to the war in Gaza ending, in January this year, Israel was defending its forces and denying any possibility of war crimes. Despite international observers, and stories of despicable brutality told by the Palestinians themselves, the Israeli government continued to deny any such events had occurred.

Now, however, Israeli soldiers are speaking out, describing the atrocities they saw committed by their own side. Evidence has emerged of heavy involvement by rabbis, circulating religious pamphlets among the troops that described the war as a ‘war of religion’.

“All the articles had one clear message,” one soldier said. “We are the people of Israel, we arrived in the country almost by miracle, now we need to fight to uproot the gentiles who interfere with re-conquering the Holy Land.”

“Many soldiers’ feelings were that this was a war of religion,” he added.^[1]

There’s nothing quite like injecting a religious cause into conflict, to bolster the moral high ground.

Despite statements from Israeli soldiers, describing Palestinians murdered in cold blood, Defence Minister Ehud Barak recently told Israel Radio:

I still say we have the most moral army in the world. Of course there may be exceptions but I have absolutely no doubt this will be inspected on a case-by-case basis.”

Say it often enough, Barak, and someone, somewhere, may eventually believe you.

^{[1] “Israel troops admit Gaza abuses” BBC, March 19th 2009}

Filed under: Out of Israeli mouths

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Despite the possibility of Sparrow Chat being labeled an anti-religious tome, the Pope’s visit to Africa cannot be allowed to pass without comment, given his deliberately false proclamation to journalists before he landed on the continent.

In fact, Sparrow Chat is in no way anti-religious. It just condemns the papery, pestilence, and perpetually lying proclamations of those charged with perpetrating a fraud for the purposes of enriching their purses and enforcing their power.

The present occupant of the Vatican is one of the worst for a long time. Were he to have been born six hundred years ago he would likely have rivaled the infamous Alexander VI, or Innocent VIII. Fortunately, popes today are no longer able to murder and fornicate at will – at least, not so easily.

It’s not generally known if, during the elaborate papal consecration ceremonies, the ‘sexual verification’ of the new pontiff is still practiced. Since the thirteenth century and the infamous case of Pope Joan ( a Pope John believed to have possibly been a woman) legend has it that new popes have had to prostrate themselves on a low seat while selected clergy examined the pontiff’s intimate parts to ascertain his credentials. Once verified to everyone’s satisfaction, it’s a short journey from the low seat of examination to the high throne of Saint Peter.

While the procedure is considered by some to be mere myth, one Adam of Usk – a Welsh cleric who spent time in Rome during the fifteenth century – recounts the procedure in his Chronicum of the period:

……and having arrived there, the pope dismounts and enters the church to be enthroned. Here he sits on a throne of porphery through which a hole has been cut for this purpose, and is examined by one of the younger cardinals to ensure that he has male genitalia; whereupon, while “Te Deum Laudamus” is sung, he is led to the high altar.” ^[1]

In fairness, no-one has truly ascertained the authenticity of this practice. Given that medieval popes generally sired umpteen illegitimate offspring prior to ascending to the highest spiritual office the church could bestow, the process would appear somewhat irrelevant. Adam of Usk, however, was in no doubt.

Pope Benedict XVI is unlikely to have needed such an examination. Membership of the Hitler Youth was confined to males and, unless he was really a member of its sister organization, the League of German Girls, he would have been ‘checked out’ on entering the organization.

His dictatorial manner, and love of those proclamations to which we must all conform or be damned to everlasting hellfire, were always apparent even before he touched down on African soil.

The condemnation of condoms as an instrument of the Devil; his insistence that they not only have no beneficial effect in preventing the spread of HIV, but actually contribute to it, are symptoms of a being well used to blindly accepting orders from on high, without stopping for a moment to question their wisdom.

Presumably, as he gave no explanation of his ‘condom proclamation’, he’s still sticking to the old and long-disproved Vatican theory that HIV viruses pass through condoms and infect people.

Pope Benedict XVI knows that isn’t true.

He is the holiest creation of the Roman Catholic church on earth, yet just like his medieval predecessors he blithely resorts to blatant lies and hypocrisy, knowing full well that many of his followers will believe him simply because he’s the Pope, and a pope’s word is sacrosanct.

It’s estimated that two million people have died from HIV/AIDS in Africa. No-one would suggest they all contracted the disease because of the Roman Catholic doctrine, but there are in excess of 150 million African Catholics on the continent. With an HIV/AIDS rate nationally of around 4%, possibly six million Catholics are presently infected.

Denying the faithful condoms, by condemning them to everlasting hellfire if they use them, is probably resulting in thousands more being infected and eventually dying.

Does that make Benedict XVI better, or worse, than medieval counterparts like Innocent VIII or Alexander VI, who simply used a more direct approach to slaughter many of their flock?

^{[1] “The Myth of Pope Joan” by Alain Boureau, Lydia G. Cochrane pp.13}

^{[2] “Vatican in HIV condom row” BBC, October 9th 2003}

Filed under: Papal bull

Posted under Sparrow Chat

In May 2005, when the US/UK invasion of Iraq was going badly, the US government attempted to divert public opinion from the atrocities of the war by holding a series of Congressional hearings relating to the earlier Western sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, in particular the “Oil-for Food” program.

Certain companies and individuals were accused of sanction-busting over this program. Among them was the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the British Member of Parliament, George Galloway.

Presumably Congress decided it could divert the bitter public opinion fomenting over the war by assuming the high moral ground regarding Iraq sanction-busting. To that end they held a series of Congressional hearings, perhaps better described as witch-hunts.

The preemptive invasion of Iraq, with all its accompanying horrors, is already drifting into the mists of history. The public memory is short, at least in the US, and matters of the domestic economy now dominate its media. Those responsible for committing international war crimes no longer serve in the government, having slipped away to more anonymous occupations.

There is still a reckoning to be made. No-one can be responsible for the decimation of a nation and walk away unpunished.

When the US Congress called on George Galloway to answer his accusers, they expected much fawning and grovelling before them. Let’s be honest, it’s what they’re used to from their own kind.

What they got was something entirely different.

The US Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican “Norm” Coleman, took on a British Bulldog – and lost.

^{While US congressmen and British politicians continue to whine over the plight of a world entirely of their making, George Galloway has been busy elsewhere. Check out “This Old Brit” for details, and my thanks to him for bringing it to Sparrow Chat’s attention.}

Filed under: There’s dogs and there’s curs

Posted under Sparrow Chat