Lottery Post Journal

First Challenging Interview for Obama Camp of Entire Campaign

Look how stunned Joe Biden looks when he's asked hard questions.

At one point he asks, "I don't know who's writing your questions..."

Well, Joe, it certainly ain't NBC News!

Apparently after this interview, the Obama camp said they are punishing this TV station. 

And that's exactly what will happen in an Obama administration: outright intimidation and censorship.

Here we go!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

In my view, this is the best article published this year.  There is no way to say it better.

by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Fred Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.


Conservatives in Hollywood are stifled, bullied

This is a really good look at politics in Hollywood.  Well-sourced and even refreshing to read. 

Conservatives claim their politics can have consequences
By Paul Bond

At a recent event for Republicans in Hollywood, an actress was asked whether she had ever worn her pro-Sarah Palin pin to an audition.

"You must be joking!" she said with a laugh, adding, "But I see Obama stuff all the time."

It's no secret that the entertainment industry is overwhelmingly liberal — political donations this presidential cycle from the movie, TV and music industries recently were running about 86% Democrat versus 14% Republican. But being outnumbered is one thing, being bullied by your liberal co-workers into keeping your opinions to yourself is quite another.

Is that what's going on? Yes, say many of the industry's conservatives. That's why secret organizations with such names as "SpeakEasy" and "The Sunday Night Club" spring up every so often. They're not conservative per se, they just let it be known that attendees of their gatherings may freely discuss politics without being chastised for not toeing the liberal line.

"Are you kidding me? Of course it's true," Kelsey Grammer said when asked whether the town is hostile to conservatives. "I wish Hollywood was a two-party town, but it's not."

Grammer said he knows of a makeup trailer that sported a sign warning Republicans to keep out and of U.S. war veterans who keep their backgrounds a secret from their Hollywood co-workers because they hear them belittle the military.

He even said that, earlier in his career, his job was threatened by a prominent sitcom director who demanded he donate money to Barbara Boxer's U.S. Senate campaign. To keep his job, he gave $10,000 to Boxer and the Democrats.

Nowadays, Grammer is a bankable actor who is unafraid to speak his mind. His advice to less established industry players, though, is to shut up about politics — "unless you think the way you are supposed to think," and that means liberal.

However, there are many who are trying to make Hollywood more accommodating to political diversity. Andrew Breitbart is one. At, he's launching a "Big Hollywood" blog with 40 industry conservatives tasked with — among other things — highlighting liberal intolerance.

"There's an undeniably vicious attitude against those who dissent," Breitbart said. "Hollywood is the most predictable place on the planet, not exclusively because of politics but because of narrow-mindedness."

Breitbart maintains that liberals have pushed conservatives too hard in Hollywood and that Americans have noticed. His intent is "to stop the bullying."

One "Big Hollywood" blogger is Andrew Klavan, an accomplished novelist-screenwriter who made a splash with a Wall Street Journal article comparing Batman and the "The Dark Knight" to President Bush and the war on terror.

"It's not easy being different," he said. "The liberals aren't all that liberal. We think they're wrong, but they think we're evil, and they behave like it."

If you lean right, pitch to those who are sympathetic, or at least tolerant of conservative viewpoints, Klavan said. Mel Gibson, Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Surnow come to mind.

Klavan also said liberalism seeps into too much Hollywood content nowadays and offers as proof the several anti-Iraq war movies that have been boxoffice bombs.

"These aren't even movies about the war on terror," he said. "They're Vietnam War movies, made by people who sit around at Skybar discussing their pacifist world view."

TV also is too one-sided, he said. "They don't even make fun of Barack Obama," he noted. "How is that possible? The guy's hilarious."

Even liberals acknowledge that they have an easier time than conservatives in Hollywood.

"The person who will get snickered at and picked on is the one wearing the McCain-Palin button," actor Eric Roberts said. "But that's OK. It's America. A free country. If you're going to stick your neck out, it's gonna get whacked."

"You just said liberals discriminate more than conservatives," interrupted his wife, Eliza, an actress and casting director.

But the couple maintain that taking any passionate political position — right or left — can be difficult. They recalled when Eric was a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" and, after returning to the set of the TV show on which he was working, a producer told him: "We're doing a TV show here. We don't need that kind of politicizing. Don't go public with your views."

He noted, though, that the admonition came from a like-minded liberal whose concern was for maintaining high ratings. Nevertheless, the experience had a cautioning effect on Roberts.

"I pick my battles now. If you support Sarah Palin, I'd walk away," he said. "I wouldn't chastise you, I'd feel sorry for you."

Beyond the various "secretive" organizations around town, there is the more obvious Hollywood Congress of Republicans. Headed by actor Mark Vafiades, HCR boasts 160 members who meet about nine times a year to socialize and hear from various right-leaning special guests.

At a recent HCR event, "Saturday Night Live" alumna Victoria Jackson, for example, joked that she's probably the only conservative Christian to have kissed both Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin. Then the comedian-gymnast stood on her head until the room agreed to vote for McCain-Palin, which didn't take long.

Although Obama fundraisers are legion in Hollywood and can draw hundreds of moguls, actors, musicians and pro athletes eager to spend time with the senator, McCain's few appearances have been more understated affairs.

The most recent event, in fact, didn't even draw the candidate or his running mate. Instead, spouses Cindy McCain and Todd Palin headlined while comedian Dennis Miller supplied the entertainment.

McCain and Palin don't spend much time in Hollywood — even to raise money — because they figure a Republican can't win California. But the party ignores the entertainment capital at its own peril.

"They didn't only write off California, they wrote off our culture," Breitbart said.


Liberal tolerance

Good video discussing tax plans of candidates

It's nice to hear a open discussion by reasonable people regarding the tax plans of the candidates -- backed up by relevant video.

It is refreshing to hear everything on the table -- not just the CNN/MSNBC/NBC/ABC/CBS/PBS Obama love-in, in which all the bad points about "their guy" covered up.  (i.e., the "95% of tax-payers get a tax cut" nonsense.)

Obama Supporters Explain the Positions They Agree With

This is an interesting interview of Obama supporters explaining which views of his that they agree with.

It goes a long way toward explaining why he's leading in the polls.

"Clickjacking" - learn about this security threat

This morning I learned about a security threat called clickjacking, in which a hacker can get you to willingly and unknowingly give complete control of your web cam.

I'm sure the same hack can be applied to other types of software/hardware — basically giving control of whatever is connected to your PC.

There is a YouTube video linked in the article.  Be sure that you look at it, so you can see how it happens.

This security threat underscores a basic problem that has nothing to do with technology — it has to do with behavior.  Namely, your behavior.

It is simple to avoid these kind of threats, and it doesn't cost anything, and it doesn't involve installation of any software.

It involves modifying your behavior to stop clicking on things.

Is there really a need for you to waste the next ten minutes clicking on an animated monkey?  (Or whatever other dopey "games" they come up with.)

When you see those things, whether you stumble on them from Google, or if you get an e-mail with a link to it, or if a friend says, "You really have to try this out," your response should be to simply ignore it, or in the case of e-mail, delete the e-mail without even considering clicking on the link.

If you can't find the intestinal fortitude to do that, then you will have a peeping tom watching you through your web cam.  Or maybe a thief looking at your online bank account or stealing your credit card number.

If you don't want that to happen, then stop clicking on dopey stuff.

Here's the link to the article.  Please do yourself a favor and read it through to the end — then make sure to watch the YouTube clip.

U.S. to rely on Russia for manned spaceflight

By John Schwartz
Sunday, October 5, 2008

STAR CITY, Russia—This place was once no place, a secret military base northeast of Moscow that did not show up on maps. The Soviet Union trained its astronauts here to fight on the highest battlefield of the Cold War: space.

Yet these days, Star City is the place for America's hard-won orbital partnership with Russia, where astronauts train to fly aboard Soyuz spacecraft. And in two years, according to the Bush administration's plans, Star City will be the only place for sending astronauts from any nation to the International Space Station.

The gap is coming: Between 2010, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shuts down the space shuttle program, and 2015, when the next generation of U.S. spacecraft is scheduled to arrive, NASA expects to have no human flight capacity and will depend on Russia to get to the $100 billion station, buying seats on Soyuz craft as space tourists do.

As NASA celebrates its 50th anniversary this month, the administration's plan to retire the shuttle and work on a return to the Moon has thrust the U.S. space program squarely into national politics and geopolitical controversy.

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the presidential candidates, denounced the gap and touted their commitment to the space program while on trips to Florida, where thousands of workers will lose their jobs when the shuttle program ends. And antagonism between the United States and Russia, over Georgia and other issues, is clouding the future of a 15-year partnership between the American and Russian space programs, precisely when NASA will be more reliant on Russia than ever before.

Even the administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin, has called the situation "unseemly in the extreme." In an e-mail message he sent to his top advisers in August, Griffin wrote that "events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the U.S. to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power for access to ISS."

Griffin is worried enough that he ordered his staff to explore the costs of flying the aging shuttles past 2010. He decided to evaluate that option, he said in an interview last month, "about five minutes after the Russians invaded Georgia, because I could see this coming." But he warns that any extension would be costly and could further delay NASA's return to the moon and threaten America's role as the leading space power.

China last month made what it calls a "major breakthrough" in its space program with the third successful launch of its Shenzhou VII spacecraft and a first-ever spacewalk by one of its astronauts. The Chinese government has said it hopes to establish a space station and eventually make a moon landing. The U.S. plans to return to the moon by 2020 at the earliest, and some observers believe China may get there first.

The interruption in American-controlled access to space rankles some in Washington, including Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida and a leading proponent of the space program. In an interview, he said that it was "inexcusable" for the country's space program to be put in a position of dependence on such a politically volatile partner.

"We've got a Russian prime minister who believes he's Czar," he said of Vladimir Putin after Russia's invasion of Georgia.

The United States has had periods in which its astronauts could not reach space: between the end of the Apollo program and the beginning of shuttle flights in 1981, and after the loss of the shuttles Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. But the coming interval could become the longest of all if the rollout of NASA's new rockets is significantly delayed.

Even though the outlines of the gap have been known since soon after Griffin began running the agency in 2005, Commander Scott Kelly of the U.S. Navy, an astronaut who has made two trips to orbit, warned in April that the prospect of a United States that cannot send humans into space on its own rockets will come as a shock.

"A large part of the American public is going to be surprised," he predicted, and people will ask in outrage, "Who let that happen?"

While critics decry the pause in American flights, it is no accident. The Bush administration chose to give up the nation's access to space for five years as part of its plans to stop using the aging and risky shuttle fleet, and to move to the next phase of space travel. The administration decided to retire the shuttles after the loss of the Columbia and its crew of seven astronauts in 2003, and in January 2004 announced a sweeping "vision for space exploration" program, Constellation, that would shift NASA's focus to the Moon and Mars.

The new launch program is built around Ares rockets and Orion capsules that can take America beyond the shuttle's limitations as a low-Earth-orbit vehicle. The Constellation craft are designed to return astronauts to the Moon and even to explore near-Earth asteroids and Mars.

To get from one program to the other without hiking NASA's $17 billion annual budget, the administration decided to wind down the shuttle program and ramp up Constellation, without trying to run two programs at once. The decision has never been portrayed as anything but difficult — even last year, Griffin said in an interview, "I hate the gap." But in recent months, criticism has flared. Both presidential candidates, for example, pledge to keep America flying.

"As president, I will act to ensure our astronauts will continue to explore space, and not just by hitching a ride with someone else," McCain, the Republican nominee, said in a statement earlier this year. [Edit: That's the kind of statement that we look for in a President: telling us exactly what he's going to do.]

His Democratic opponent, Obama, criticizes what he has called the "poor planning and inadequate funding" that have led to the situation. [Edit: That's the kind of statement that we all hate—casting blame everywhere except himself, and saying nothing about what he will do.]

Both candidates say NASA should explore the continuation of the shuttle program for at least one additional flight, and to try to speed up Constellation development with additional funding.

More money, however, might be hard to come by in a time of war and record economic bailouts. And any new funding would come too late to greatly shorten the development time for the new craft.

"It is essentially unfixable now," Griffin said.

His growing frustration was clear in the e-mail message he distributed to his closest aides on Aug. 18 — including the order to study the additional flights.

"In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability," he wrote. Within the administration, he wrote, "retiring the shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program-management decision."

After the e-mail was published by The Orlando Sentinel newspaper, Griffin issued a statement saying that his message failed "to provide the contextual framework for my remarks, and my support for the administration's policies."

At the time of Griffin's e-mail, legislation vital to NASA's gap plans — permission by Congress to buy Soyuz seats past 2011 — was stalled by the furor over the Russian conflict with Georgia. That problem was resolved last month when Congress quietly granted approval, but the broader issues presented by the gap remain.

And Griffin's concerns do not end with Russia and Washington politics. He has repeatedly warned that China's space program is moving forward rapidly. In testimony to the Senate last year, Griffin said it was likely that "China will be able to put people on the Moon before we will be able to get back."

That prospect is a concern for Representative Tom Feeney, Republican of Florida.

"The U.S. cannot sit back and allow space capabilities to empower countries that may not have our best interests at heart," he said.

Feeney said that not all of his colleagues shared his sense of urgency. A fellow congressman recently suggested naming the first new lunar base after Neil Armstrong. Feeney recalled responding, "What makes you think the Chinese are going to give us permission to name their base after one of our astronauts?"

The growing tension with Russia complicates a longstanding international alliance in space that helped to defuse the Cold War, especially among those who had served at the front lines.

William Shepherd, the first commander of the station and a former fighter pilot, recalled that when he and his crewmate Yuri Gidzenko first orbited the Earth, the two Cold Warriors pointed to air bases where, years before, they waited on alert should armed conflict begin.

"I realized at that moment we were not an American and a Russian anymore," he said. "It was about something that transcended that whole canvas."

The partnership began in the 1990s, as the Soviet Union and its economy collapsed, its space program was adrift, and the Russian knowledge about carrying people into orbit — or bombs to distant destinations — was at risk of falling into the hands of hostile nations. In paying to help keep the Russian space program going, the logic went, the United States would stem proliferation. By the mid-1990s Americans began serving aboard the Mir space station as the United States and Russia planned what would become the International Space Station.

The early days were marked by wariness. Mark Bowman, an early contract employee in Russia who is now back in Moscow as a NASA representative, said Korolev, where mission control is, "was a closed city" when he first arrived in 1993. "Foreigners were not allowed here." These days, NASA has teams of workers who live year-round in Russia and dozens of others who come through for training runs, launches and landings.

"We've built an incredible relationship over the years," said Kelly, the navy commander. "I'd venture to say the people who work at NASA know the Russians better than any other branch of our government."

Susan Eisenhower, an expert on U.S.-Russian relations and the space programs, said the Russians proved after the loss of the shuttle Columbia and its crew in 2003 that they would hold up their end of the bargain by continuing to take Americans to the station.

"When we had no choice because of the shuttle failure, the Russians could have blackmailed us around this tragedy and did not do so," she said. "They came through in a way that demonstrated the fruits of our cooperation."

Vitaly Davidov, the deputy director of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, said in an interview at mission control that Russia would honor its commitments to fly crews to the station.

"It's absolutely sure the political leadership of all countries participating in the space station are interested in carrying out this project," he said. A Kremlin official agreed. "Russia has had, and continues to enjoy, a very positive relationship with America's space program. We will stand by our obligations and we firmly expect to continue our mutual cooperation."

That does not mean that the going will be easy. The United States and Russia are at loggerheads over many trade and political issues, and increasingly, Russia has been tightening control over energy companies like Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly, and using them to bully their international rivals.

But Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonprofit organization in Washington that studies nuclear proliferation, said that while the Russian space monopoly created risk, "there is a longstanding etiquette: You do not mess with the safety of humans in space."

So, he said, "I don't think this is going to get very ugly if the gap problem continues. But it will become expensive."

Pres. of Los Angeles NOW chapter endorses Palin for VP

This is stunning from the fact that all presidents of NOW (National Organization of Women) chapters have not done the same thing.

But it is welcome to see as a start.

NOW L.A. chapter President:  "This is what a feminist looks like."

Here's some horrible hand-held amateur video, but at least it documents the endorsement.

This is scary stuff

This is a frightening look at one possible future for America after election day.

This is why you don't choose someone for their popularity.  This is what happens when you do.

This is why having a fair and impartial media is critical to our freedom.  This is what happens when the media is in the tank, not doing its job and actively supporting one side.

Think this is isolated or a joke?  It's not.  I know from seeing first-hand that this kind of indoctrination and mindless, cult-like following is happening everywhere, especially among teens, and even pre-teens.

Clinton-era NY Times article about Fannie Mae

Once again, we can see where fault lies with this entire bailout.  The seeds were planted a long time ago, but even then, there were people very clearly predicting exactly what would happen — and WHY and HOW it would happen.

Ironic that it would appear in the New York Times.

The whole thing was caused by giving people loans who couldn't afford to pay.  Who do you think was pushing that kind of thing?

Here is a single salient page from a New York Times article dated September 30, 1999.  It's very brief, and well-worth a look.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
New York Times, September 30, 1999

Technology progress over the past 6,000 years

iPhone vs. rock

Search using the 2001 version of Google

I just stumbled on a very cool thing.

Google just turned 10 years old, and one of the things they did to celebrate is to bring back their very first search index from 2001 — and they let you run searches using it!

The site even uses the early Google logo.

When you bring up search results, they have an option to view the page from the Internet Archive, so you can see what the page looked like way back in 2001!

Here's a link:

Try typing "lottery post" as the search query.  Not only can you see a very old version of Lottery Post, but if you skip down a few entries you can see an early version of — the former version of USA Mega.

What a cool walk down memory lane!

One of the really neat things is that Lottery Post and USA Mega ( are just as old as Google.  These sites have been around a long time, and have come a long way, just like Google.

Edit: If you type "lottery post" as the search term, you will actually see two entries for Lottery Post — the second being the Rules page.  If you click the Rules page link (the archive link, not the main link), you not only get to see how simple the rules were back then, but you also get treated to the first [ugly] version of the LP logo.