Here's how the Department of Homeland Security protects you: not very well. From the story at the link: 

No, these frontline warriors in the global war on terrorism at Homeland Security had far more pressing issues to question me about. "Why did you infringe on the Boston Celtics' copyright in Boston in 2003?" asked my case officer, Malik — ironically a Pakistani — from behind his high desk. Uh, because I used to sell T-shirts outside sporting events, I said, wondering what this had to do with national security.

"You've got a long record," he said. Sure, for peddling "Yankees Suck" T-shirts — sans permit, which isn't a crime but a code violation — not for promoting "Bin Laden Rulz!" DVDs or the "Idiot's Guide to Suicide Bombing."

"You know, we could have you sent up to Boston for the unresolved T-shirt infractions," Malik said. "But what we're holding you for is an NYPD bench warrant from 2004. You were in a fight with a parking attendant, found not guilty and then missed a court date." All true. But how and why does Homeland Security share the NYPD's jurisdiction in cases unrelated to counter-terrorism? A fight over a parking space hardly counts as terrorism.

"We're calling NYPD to come to pick you up," Malik told me, without asking a single question about Pakistan, terrorism, Islam or madrasas.

Read the whole thing. It makes the Keystone Kops look highly trained and professional. 

This is good: via Boing Boing, a guy tries to cancel his AOL account. He knew that it would be an adventure in salesmanship and refusal, so he recorded the call. You can listen to an MP3 of the whole grisly thing. Lesson: don't ever get an AOL account, and if you do, good luck in getting out.

Here's the list: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

I watched In Good Company last night. (Interesting that we 'see' movies but 'watch' DVDs (and TV).) It's the movie about a corporate takeover that puts a 26-year-old novice (Topher Grace) as head of a department with the 51-year-old former head (Dennis Quaid) now reporting to him. It's supposed to be a comedy, so all bad guys are punished, all good guys do well—unlike the reality of typical real-life corporate takeovers. But even in this comedy context, the viewer encounters some familiar and edgy scenes and situations: long-time loyal employees being tossed out, incompetent managers put in place, bottom-line decisions to cut x% of the payroll without regard to whether it's a reasonable plan, and the like.

I would say that, on the whole, the movie doesn't work, but it certainly awakens memories held by those of us who have experienced some of this. And it's interesting to see an attempt to make a comedy of something that is indeed a part of life today but is not very funny.