The MSI (Windows Installer) isn't loaded in Safe mode in Vista or any other
Windows Operating System, even though the command in the run box "msiexec"
without quotes will show the version of the installer in safe mode. You can
register the msiexec file in safe mode but you don't have the MSI loaded in
safe mode. So how precisely is he going to "clean up/uninstall" Alcohol
120% in Safe Mode? What's he going to use to uinstall it?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895141
"INTRODUCTION
By default, you cannot start Microsoft Windows Installer in Safe Mode. If
you installed an application by using Windows Installer, you cannot
uninstall the application in Safe Mode."
You will likely see this error courtesy of the gang from Redmond MSFT:
:"The Windows Installer Service could not be
accessed. This can occur if you are running Windows in
safe mode, or if the Windows Installer is not correctly
installed. Contact your support personnel for assistance."
Also check out the good ole universal MSI fixer even when you don't have
Error 1719:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315346
"When you try to add or remove a program, you may receive the following
error message:
Error 1719. The Windows Installer Service could not be accessed. ***You may
be running in safe mode or Windows Installer may not be correctly
installed."
CH
GOP=Grim Old Party Crashing and Burning Every Day
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
October 7, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
I Did Do It
By MAUREEN DOWD
Washington
O.K., folks, you want the truth?
The whole truth and nothing but?
After all this time, you’re still dying to see the mystery solved?
Fine. I did it. Everything A. said — let’s just use the initial because it’s
still hard for me to speak the name of my victim and tormentor — was true.
I did what I had to do and I didn’t care if it ruined A.’s life. I didn’t
even care if people thought it was obscene.
I knew I was misusing my position, but I enjoyed having that kind of raw
power over A. and saying the things I said. It made me tingle all over. I’m
not going to deny that.
The liberals have turned A. into an icon. Give me a break. We are talking
about a world-class know-it-all — someone prissy, uptight and no fun.
Not the sort of person I’d like to tailgate with, listen to Marvin Gaye
with, share Ripple or a Scotch and Drambuie or a blackberry brandy with — if
I were still drinking.
Not the kind, like my wife, Ginny, I’d bring along on an expedition in my
custom-made motor home — those idyllic times when I get away from the
meanness in Washington. Can you imagine that stiff A. spending the night in
a Wal-Mart parking lot or hanging at a truck stop?
The liberals championed A. because they wanted to keep abortion safe. They
can’t stop reliving the historic face-off, reopening the wound, replaying
that whole media circus, wishing it had come out the opposite way.
Ginny has her heart set on having my memoir reap redemption. A lot of
journalists on A.’s side in the last round have come over to my side. They’ve
even shown the lighter side of Clarence. My new friend, ABC’s Jan Crawford
Greenburg, called me one of “the most complex, compelling, maligned and
misunderstood figures in modern history.†And thank you, Steve Kroft. I
never thought “60 Minutes†could be so sweet.
A. looks a lot different now — I’ve caught the TV interviews and op-ed
opining — but the old self-righteousness is still there.
I have no apologies to make. When you’re born in a backwater shack in Pin
Point, Ga.; when you grow up poor, cold and hungry; when you get a bellyful
of racial slights and condescension; when you can’t get a job after
graduation, even with a degree from Yale, because you’re competing with
rich, white, well-connected guys who were legacies at Yale, that’s when the
anger boils up in you.
Every Southern black who lived through Jim Crow knows the feeling. From the
time I was a kid, when my white classmates made fun of me as “ABC†—
“America’s Blackest Child†— the beast of rage against The Man has gnawed at
my soul.
Your Yale law degree isn’t worth 15 cents when everyone assumes you got
special treatment because of the color of your skin, when, really, it was
the witless Wonder Bread elites who got special treatment because of the
color of their daddy’s money.
I still have a 15-cent sticker on the frame of my law degree because it’s
tainted. I keep it in the basement.
That’s why I refuse, as a justice, to give a helping hand to blacks. I don’t
want them to suffer from the advantages I had. Few of them will be able to
climb to my heights, of course, but if they do, they will have the
satisfaction of knowing that they made it on their own, as individuals.
Because Poppy Bush put me on the Supreme Court after I’d been a judge for
only a year, I’ll always wonder if I got the job just because of my race. I
want to spare other blacks that kind of worry. That’s why I pulled the
ladder up after myself — so that my brothers and sisters would have the
peace of mind that comes with self-reliance.
I used to have grave reservations about working at white institutions,
subject to the whims of white superiors. But when Poppy’s whim was to crown
his son — one of those privileged Yale legacy types I always resented — I
had to repay The Man for putting me on the court even though I was neither
qualified nor honest.
So I voted to shut down the vote-counting in Florida by A. — oh, I’ll just
say it: Al — because if he’d kept going he might have won. I helped swing
the court in case No. 00-949, Bush v. Gore, to narrowly achieve the Bush
restoration.
I know it wasn’t what my hero Atticus Finch would have done. But having the
power to carjack the presidency and control the fate of the country did give
me that old X-rated tingle.
Al Gore’s true claims didn’t matter in that standoff any more than Anita
Hill’s true claims did during my confirmation. That’s the beautiful thing
about being a conservative. We don’t push for the truth. We push to win,
praise the Lord.
It’s a relief to finally admit it: I’m proud to have hastened Al’s premature
political death, hanging by hanging chads. It was, you might say, a low-tech
lynching.
__________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?hp
October 7, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen
By FRANK RICH
WHAT'S the difference between a low-tech lynching and a high-tech lynching?
A high-tech lynching brings a tenured job on the Supreme Court and a $1.5
million book deal. A low-tech lynching, not so much.
Pity Clarence Thomas. Done in by what he calls "left-wing zealots draped in
flowing sanctimony" — as he describes anyone who challenged his elevation to
the court — he still claims to have suffered as much as African-Americans
once victimized by "bigots in white robes." Since kicking off his book tour
on "60 Minutes" last Sunday, he has been whining all the way to the bank,
often abetted by a press claque as fawning as his No. 1 fan, Rush Limbaugh.
We are always at a crossroads with race in America, and so here we are
again. The rollout of Justice Thomas's memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," is
not happening in a vacuum. It follows a Supreme Court decision (which he
abetted) outlawing voluntary school desegregation plans in two American
cities. It follows yet another vote by the Senate to deny true Congressional
representation to the majority black District of Columbia. It follows the
decision by the leading Republican presidential candidates to snub a debate
at a historically black college as well as the re-emergence of a low-tech
lynching noose in Jena, La.
Perhaps most significant of all, Mr. Thomas's woe-is-me tour unfolds against
the backdrop of the presidential campaign of an African-American whose
political lexicon does not include martyrdom or rage. "My Grandfather's Son"
may consciously or not echo the title of Barack Obama's memoir of genealogy
and race, "Dreams From My Father," but it might as well be written in
another tongue.
It's useful to watch Mr. Thomas at this moment, 16 years after his riveting
confirmation circus. He is a barometer of what has and has not changed since
then because he hasn't changed at all. He still preaches against black
self-pity even as he hyperbolically tries to cast his Senate
cross-examination by Joe Biden as tantamount to the Ku Klux Klan
assassination of Medgar Evers. He still denies that he is the beneficiary of
the very race-based preferences he deplores. He still has a dubious
relationship with the whole truth and nothing but, and not merely in the
matter of Anita Hill.
This could be seen most vividly on "60 Minutes," when he revisited a parable
about the evils of affirmative action that is also a centerpiece of his
memoir: his anger about the "tainted" degree he received from Yale Law
School. In Mr. Thomas's account, he stuck a 15-cent price sticker on his
diploma after potential employers refused to hire him. By his reckoning, a
Yale Law graduate admitted through affirmative action, as he was, would
automatically be judged inferior to whites with the same degree. The "60
Minutes" correspondent, Steve Kroft, maintained that Mr. Thomas had no
choice but to settle for a measly $10,000-a-year job (in 1974 dollars) in
Missouri, working for the state's attorney general, John Danforth.
What "60 Minutes" didn't say was that the post was substantial — an
assistant attorney general — and that Mr. Danforth was himself a Yale Law
graduate. As Mr. Danforth told the story during the 1991 confirmation
hearings and in his own book last year, he traveled to New Haven to recruit
Mr. Thomas when he was still a third-year law student. That would be before
he even received that supposedly worthless degree. Had it not been for Yale
taking a chance on him in the first place, in other words, Mr. Thomas would
never have had the opportunity to work the Yalie network to jump-start his
career and to ascend to the Supreme Court. Mr. Danforth, a senator in 1991,
was the prime mover in shepherding the Thomas nomination to its successful
conclusion.
Bill O'Reilly may have deemed the "60 Minutes" piece "excellent," but others
spotted the holes. Marc Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who now directs
the National Urban League, told Tavis Smiley on PBS that it was "as though
Justice Thomas's public relations firm edited the piece." On CNN, Jeffrey
Toobin, the author of the new best-seller about the court, "The Nine," said
that it was "real unfair" for "60 Minutes" not to include a response from
Ms. Hill, who was slimed on camera by Mr. Thomas as "not the demure,
religious, conservative person" she said she was.
Ms. Hill, who once taught at Oral Roberts University and is now a professor
at Brandeis, told me last week that CBS News was the only one of the three
broadcast news divisions that did not seek her reaction to the latest Thomas
salvos. Mr. Kroft told me that there were no preconditions placed on him by
either Mr. Thomas or his publisher. "Our story wasn't about Anita Hill," he
said. "Our story was about Clarence Thomas."
In any event, the piece no more challenged Mr. Thomas's ideas than it did
his insinuations about Ms. Hill. As Mr. Smiley and Cornel West noted on PBS,
"60 Minutes" showed an old clip of Al Sharpton at an anti-Thomas rally
rather than give voice to any of the African-American legal critics of
Justice Thomas's 300-plus case record on the court. In 2007, no less than in
1991, a clownish Sharpton clip remains the one-size-fits-all default
representation of black protest favored by too many white journalists.
The free pass CBS gave Mr. Thomas wouldn't matter were he just another
celebrity "get" hawking a book. Unfortunately, there's the little matter of
all that public policy he can shape — more so than ever now that John
Roberts and Samuel Alito have joined him as colleagues. Indeed, Justice
Thomas, elevated by Bush 41, was the crucial building block in what will
probably prove the most enduring legacy of Bush 43, a radical Supreme Court.
The "compassionate conservative" who turned the 2000 G.O.P. convention into
a minstrel show to prove his love of diversity will exit the political stage
as the man who tilted American jurisprudence against Brown v. Board of
Education. He leaves no black Republican behind him in either the House or
Senate.
While actuarial tables promise a long-lived Bush court, the good news is
that the polarizing racial politics exemplified by the president and Mr.
Thomas is on the wane elsewhere. Fittingly, the book tour for "My
Grandfather's Son" began just as word of Harry Dent's death arrived from
South Carolina last weekend. An aide to Strom Thurmond and then to Richard
Nixon, Mr. Dent was the architect of the "Southern strategy" that exploited
white backlash against the civil-rights movement to turn the South into a
Republican stronghold.
Mr. Dent recanted years later, telling The Washington Post when he retired
from politics in 1981 that he was sorry he had "stood in the way of rights
of black people." His peers and successors have been less chastened. One
former Nixon White House colleague, Pat Buchanan, said on "Meet the Press"
last weekend that it was no big deal for Republican candidates to skip a
debate before an African-American audience because blacks make up only about
10 percent of the voting public and Republicans only get about a tenth of
that anyway. It didn't occur to Mr. Buchanan that in 21st-century America
many white voters are also offended by politicians who snub black
Americans — whether at a campaign debate or in the rubble of Hurricane
Katrina.
Republicans who play the race card may find that it has an expiration date
even in the South. In 2000, Mr. Bush could speak at Bob Jones University
when it still forbade interracial dating among its students, and John McCain
could be tarred as the father of an illegitimate black child in the South
Carolina primary. No more. Just ask the former Senator George Allen, the
once invincible Republican prince of Virginia, whose career ended in 2006
after his use of a single racial slur.
Mr. Thomas seems ignorant of this changing America. He can never see past
his enemies' list, which in his book expands beyond his political foes, Yale
and the press to "elite white women" and "paternalistic big-city whites" and
"light-skinned blacks." (He does include a warm mention of Mr. Thurmond, a
supporter in 1991, without mentioning that the senator hid away a child
fathered with a black maid.) Always eager to cast himself as a lynching
victim, Mr. Thomas is far more trapped in the past than the 1960s
civil-rights orthodoxy he relentlessly demonizes.
The only way he can live with his various hypocrisies, it seems, is to claim
that he's the rare honest, politically incorrect black man who has the guts
to tell African-Americans what no other black leader will. Thus he asserted
to a compliant Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News last week that everyone
except him tiptoes around talk of intraracial crime and out-of-wedlock
births.
This will come as news to the millions of Americans who have heard Mr.
Obama, among other African-American leaders whose words give the lie to this
bogus claim. But the fact that America's highest court harbors a justice as
full of unreconstructed racial bitterness as Clarence Thomas will prove more
eye-opening still.
_________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07friedman.html?hp
October 7, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Charge It to My Kids
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Every so often a quote comes out of the Bush administration that leaves you
asking: Am I crazy or are they? I had one of those moments last week when
Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, was asked about a proposal by
some Congressional Democrats to levy a surtax to pay for the Iraq war, and
she responded, “We’ve always known that Democrats seem to revert to type,
and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything.â€
Yes, those silly Democrats. They’ll raise taxes for anything, even — get
this — to pay for a war!
And if we did raise taxes to pay for our war to bring a measure of democracy
to the Arab world, “does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats are
going to end these new taxes that they’re asking the American people to pay
at a time when it’s not necessary to pay them?†added Ms. Perino. “I just
think it’s completely fiscally irresponsible.â€
Friends, we are through the looking glass. It is now “fiscally
irresponsible†to want to pay for a war with a tax. These democrats just
don’t understand: the tooth fairy pays for wars. Of course she does — the
tooth fairy leaves the money at the end of every month under Treasury
Secretary Hank Paulson’s pillow. And what a big pillow it is! My God, what
will the Democrats come up with next? Taxes to rebuild bridges or schools or
high-speed rail or our lagging broadband networks? No, no, the tooth fairy
covers all that. She borrows the money from China and leaves it under
Paulson’s pillow.
Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question
is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure,
science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century?
Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you’ll
discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our
peers’.
We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The
president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research
funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for
vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a $1-a-gallon gasoline
tax — which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and
reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund
the development of renewable energy — we would be worse off as a country?
Excuse me, Ms. Perino, but I wish Republicans would revert to type. I
thought they were, well, conservatives — the kind of people who saved for
rainy days, who invested in tomorrow for their kids, folks who didn’t
believe in free lunches or free wars.
No wonder The Wall Street Journal had a story Tuesday headlined, “G.O.P. Is
Losing Grip on Core Business Vote.†It noted that traditional fiscal
conservatives were defecting from the G.O.P. “angered by the growth of
government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both
the White House and Congress.†And no wonder Alan Greenspan told The
Journal: “The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the
presidency, I no longer recognize.â€
Of course, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Democrat
David Obey, in proposing an Iraq war tax to help balance the budget was
expressing his displeasure with the war. But he was also making a very
important point when he said, “If this war is important enough to fight,
then it ought to be important enough to pay for.â€
The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all
need to pitch in — not charge it on our children’s Visa cards. Previous
American generations connected with our troops by making sacrifices at
home — we’ve never passed on the entire cost of a war to the next
generation, said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs
International, who has written a history — “The Price of Liberty†— about
how America has paid for its wars since 1776.
“In every major war we have fought in the 19th and 20th centuries,†said Mr.
Hormats, “Americans have been asked to pay higher taxes — and nonessential
programs have been cut — to support the military effort. Yet during this
Iraq war, taxes have been lowered and domestic spending has climbed. In
contrast to World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, for most
Americans this conflict has entailed no economic sacrifice. The only people
really sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families.â€
In his celebrated Farewell Address, Mr. Hormats noted, George Washington
warned against “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burdens we
ourselves ought to bear.â€
Richard G. Harper said:
Have you tried cleaning up/uninstalling in Safe Mode?
--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ...
http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website -
http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ...
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
jman_69 said:
Hi, I installed an older verson of Alochol 120 on windows vista which
doesn't
support it and in the middle of instal when it was making the virtual
drives
it crashed trying to instal the driver for the fake drive. Now everytime
I
boot I crash and get a bsod, because it keeps trying to instal drivers to
this drive that it can't. I don't have any restore points either. Is
there a
way you can disable drives from running, so I can get into vista and get
rid
of the fake drives. I have a boot disk, so I can get into dos to do
whatever.
While any help would be appreciated.
