Bill Clinton says Obama is even less experienced than he was.   Said Clinton, "There is a difference ... I was the senior governor in America."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Senior governor of what?   There's barely enough people in the whole damn state of Arkansas to fill one of New York City's five boroughs.   The state historically (at least during the Governor Clinton years) brought up the ass end of the heap in terms of literacy, living standards, and most of the characteristics we note of civilized (non-third world) society.   The state's economy was and continues to be best described as agrarian.   Basically it is a repository of chickens, pigs, and other livestock.   That was the experience this nation's liberals conned us into believing belonged to a legitimate Presidential contender so many years ago.   We would be ill advised to listen to them again.

What will we get this time if we don't get a good ole 40+ frat boy who likes to play sex games with teenage interns?   A man whose experience with big business was smoking cigars with crooked bankers who dreamed up ways to keep the poor down so they could continue their country club lifestyles?

The great man!   Give me a break!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is certainly not experienced but one would be extremely hard pressed to find anyone less experienced than slick willy was.   There may be a difference but it has nothing to do with legitimate experience.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton

An article in The Australian proclaims "El Nino shaped by global warming."

Really?

Prove it!

The article states "Researchers from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have established that since 1977, key El Nino indicators have been recorded at unprecedented levels." (Emphasis added)

How is it that we have recorded and evaluated El Nino prior to 1977 when the phenomenon was not well studied by scientists prior to the 1982-3 event?

How exactly did we study El Nino in the time periods during which a computer program for adding 4 digit numbers would have been held on punch cards filling an entire shoe box?   What about before that?

How did we record El Nino events in the times before global positiong satellites, radar, digital measurement?

The answers are we knew very little of El Nino before 1977, did not measure it, and generally have no good records of the phenomenon by which to draw such spurious conclusions.   This article is demonstrative of the kind of fear-mongering with which we simply must dispense if we are to have a reasonable conversation on the topic of climate.

This piece of ... goes on to claim that the "Walker circulation" upon which Australia relies for carrying moisture which turns into rain has been weakened by global warming with each El Nino weakening the circulation further and subsequent La Nina events unable to restore it to its normal potency.   We have yet to be able to predict either El Nino or La Nina events even five years out.   Yet the article speaks of "a late La Nina" later this year.   When is a La Nina late?

Truthfully?   Nobody knows.

We have no idea what triggers El Nino and La Nina.   We can't predict it.   We haven't measured it.   This article is trash but I thought I should post this here because it is just the sort of little myth which gives life to the larger one which is shaping policy today and going to cost you a heap of money soon.

Labels: global warming

When Zahi Hawass spoke at the "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs" exhibit in Philadelphia, protesters demonstrated because Tutankhamun is portrayed as white when he should be black.   Well, according to Zahi Hawass, an expert, they've got it all wrong.   In his words, "Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa."   Why do blacks in this country assume so many like Tutankhamun or Jesus Christ must be black.   Isn't it a racist comment to always make that assumption?

Labels: racism

If we call a scientist who has received a $10,000 stipend for an article he wrote questioning the "scientific consensus" that human carbon emissions are causing a global catastrophe, a stuge of the oil industry whose pseudo scientific work is mere propaganda, what do we call the leading proponent of the global warming notion when we discover that he received nearly three quarters of a million worth of services from George Soros-backed Open Society Institute?   Don't believe it?   Read the organization's annual report of the Investor Business Daily's story about this and other Soros projects:

http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/e_usprograms.pdf

"The Soros Threat To Democracy"

Labels: George Soros, media bias

Criticize presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, if you feel you must, but please do so in a rational way.   And please stick to something substantive.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday by city columnist Clyde Haberman in which the paper mused "Call Him an Oddball if You Must, but Do Call."   The essence of the article is to talk about how Giuliani is a flake who engages in what the author believes are loopy, flaky acts somewhat frequently.   Haberman focuses on Rudy's "weirdness factor," which Haberman says "has a long history," as defining the man at least as much as 9-11 did.   Giuliani's latest indiscretion?   A "bizarrely cutesy-poo" act of answering of his phone (his wife was calling) while in the middle of a speech to the NRA.

Presumably Clyde Haberman should be able to talk to Rudy's unfitness to be President since he is "an important journalist" in NYC.   He was in the city during all of Rudy's stints as mayor.   The problem is, he wasn't here before them.

Giuliani was NYC mayor from 1994 – 2001.   According to Haberman's columnist biography, he was in Tokyo from 1983 to 1988; Rome from 1988 to 1991; Jerusalem from 1991 to 1995; and back in the city in 1995.   NYC went from being just like any other city in America or anywhere else on the planet to one which was unliveable.   The city's finances were in shambles.   Problems were insurmountable, or at least that's why everybody said they were.   It needed fixing in so many areas its impossible to describe but there just wasn't enough money to address any of them.   It was truly a hopeless situation.

At the time leading up to Rudy's mayorship, I was employed in an office at 745 Fifth Avenue, the poshest part of town.   745 sits between 57th and 58th street.   The area is known for the Plaza Hotel, Tiffanys, and several other famous, upscale places.   My office looked out over Central Park.   It was a splendid view.   Yet we couldn't go outside after dark for fear of being mugged!   When workers stayed past 6 or 7 o'clock, the company paid for expensive car services to ensure the safety of its workers.   I recall intervi9ewing for my position in late 1992 and the folks who saw me made a point of telling me that although they worked long, late hours, I would not have to fear for my safety because of the availability of car services.   Even with that luxury, we made a practice of walking female employees out to the waiting cars because we didn't want anything to happen to them in the 15-20 feet of distance between the office door and the limousines!   It was a dangerous area!   On numerous occassions, prostitutes solicited me as I walked that 15-20 feet.   Reports of muggings, some violent, were common.   And darkness of noight was not the only time to be afraid.   I recall being jostled by several "youths" trying to pry my wallet from my posket on the subway at noon.   Everywhere you went in good ol' NYC, you were on alert because it was a rather unsafe place.

The city's state was beginning to drag on the economy.   Numerous businesses left.   I know this because my employer at the time worked with companies to find tax advantages during relocation.   Company after company which had been longstanding NYC residents picked up and left.   The city's crisis was deepening.   With significant fiscal deficits, the tax base was evaporating to make matters worse.   Yet there was no chance things would get better because there was barely enough money to keep the police happy, let alone hire additional patrolmen, or take new initiatives to bring things under control.   There was no way law and order could possibly be restored.

The city knew it couldn't re-elect David Dinkins since it was during his tenure that things had fallen apart.   But what could the electorate do?   They hadn't had a Republican mayor for 20 years leading up to that election.   The last Republican had been John Lindsay and he was at best a "liberal Republican" who switched to the Democrat party in midstream.   Before him, there was only Fiorello LaGuardia in the Great Depression through World War II years.   LaGuardia was perhaps only nominally a Republican since he was a staunch supporter of the "New Deal" and was extremely popular among Democrats, including FDR.   NYC just couldn't elect a Republican with fairly strong conservative roots, at least with respect to most issues relevant to the job.   NYC is as strong a Democrat outpost as any in the country, Tammany Hall and all that.   But elect a Republican they did.   That's how bad things were!

Giuliani won the election over Dinkins by a margin of 49% to 46%.   Everyone expected him to fail and Democrats to return to power with the next election.   After four years of the "flake," New Yorkers went to the polls and re-elected him 59% to 41%!   The reason NYC had no choice but to re-elect Rudy is things got that much better in just four years, even without resources, even with a Republican in office.   As hard as it is to imagine, the city was so converted by the Rudy experience, they subsequently elected another Republican candidate, Michael Bloomberg.   Bloomberg was nominally a Republican, having recently switched parties for the election, but his strongest attribute was an explicit endorsement by Rudy.   Bloomberg may be in most ways a liberal but he is a fiscal conservative who has continued Giuliani's law and order efforts and the city has benefitted as a result.

The New York Times' columist Clyde Haberman was not here when things were unliveable.   He came back in mid-Rudy.   But he's a liberal who does not want to even contemplate the possibility of another Republican in the office of the President.   He'll say almost anything to participate in the organized effort to bring down Rudy.   But he's wrong.   Rudy's NYC mayoral tenure is a testament to that.

Labels: liberal spin, Rudy Giuliani

There is one unavoidable problem with universal healthcare, the centerpiece of Hillary Clinton's political platform.   Universal healthcare takes medical decisions out of the hands of trained professionals and makes far too many of these decisions a matter of politics.   Some might disagree with that prognosis but those whose profits are directly effected, the pharmaceutical companies, know otherwise.   A case in point is HPV vaccine, Gardisil, marketed by Merck.

According to Wikipedia, cervical cancer "is the fifth most deadly cancer in women.   It affects about 1 per 123 women per year and kills about 9 per 100,000 per year."   As of the date of this writing, Wikipedia's site makes no mention of serious side effects of Gardisil.   Rather, it cites US Centers for Disease Control and states, "the vaccine was tested in over 10,000 females (ages 9 to 26).   These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is soreness at the injection site."   Even WebMD says, "Reports from clinical trials, to date, show Gardasil to be safe."

Merck's marketing efforts have focused on lobbying.   The company understands that there is no Viagra-like TV commercial for the general public which will turn the drug into the giant it needs it to be.   Rather, its hopes are that governments will mandate its use as a requirement before children are allowed to attend public school.   To this end, it is spending huge amounts of money to push states towards eventually making its use mandatory as a matter of public health policy.   The Wiki article lists the status of legislation in the various states including numerous pending bills, a few passed by legislatures but some of those vetoed and some signed by governors.   Merck has officially halted its efforts to get state legislatures to require 11- and 12-year-old girls to get the three-dose vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.   But that has to do with conservative parents and politicians concerns regarding HPV's status as a sexually transmitted disease.

The fact is it is hugely expensive for Merck to fight this battle state by state.   Universal healthcare would uncomplicate that.   A single centralized governmental agency would make the battle relatively simple, and cheap.   But how would an easy road to mandating the use of Gardasil effect you?   And why should you be concerned?

The first questions you should ask are:

1) Is cervical cancer really such a huge killer that we should be all-consumed with its eradication?

2) Is Gardisil the only answer to wiping out a huge killer of women?   Is it the most cost effective answer?

3) Are there no side effects we ought to consider before sheepishly following the crowd and getting our young daughters vaccinated?

Before I begin answering these questions, let me explain that I have high regard for the many miracles medical science has provided us over the past decades.   The field is singularly responsible for shooting life expectancy into the stratosphere.   Illnesses which routinely led to death just 100 or so years ago are today nothing more than minor inconveniences.   Also, I advocate a generally less careful approach to pharmaceutical approval than our FDA practices.   I believe when you view the pluses and minuses of approving drugs, you have to consider not just those who are negatively effected by drugs which have been less than fully vetted, but also the benefits forgone when drug approvals are held up for decades in order to conduct exhaustive pre-approval screenings.   It is a difficult tightrope to walk but a huge part of the cost of medicines includes the cost of the approval process.   With these things in mind, I hesitate to criticize a medicine which holds such huge promise for so many.   What bothers me most is not so much that the pharmaceutical industry is aggressive about promoting its products but that if we lived under a universal healthcare regime, it would be a small matter for companies like Merck to force us into such medical decisions.

The occassion of my writing about Gardasil is somewhat complicated and involves mostly anecdotal evidence.   It begins with a friend of the family attending a routine follow-up doctor visit for her newborn.   While she was waiting for a physician, there was significant activity in an examination room.   A 12 year old was being vaccinated when she fainted and suffered a "tremor," what the nurse referred to as a "mild seizure."   Later during our friend's doctor visit, the nurse mumbled to a co-worker in reference to the "mild seizure," "that's the fourth one today."

I thought this description of events might be an exaggeration or perhaps some sort of isolated incident.   Maybe the use of the word seizure by the nurse was a bit overstated.   I've personally seen both seizure-like occurences and real seizures take place.   Sometimes it isn't particularly easy to differentiate though the implications of each are drastically different.   Or maybe the incident was accurately reported but I imagine this would have been isolated since I haven't heard anything much about these types of things on nightly news reports

So I set out to see if I could find anything online.   I searched Google for "Gardasil side effects seizure" and was astounded at the volume of web pages I discovered.   One blog, in particular, has raised a few eyebrows with its reports of serious Gardisil side effects.   Read it for yourself but some of the most salient comments include:

May 2007 - Judicial Watch excerpted the VAERS database entries for Gardasil and posted them as .pdf file on the web; there were 1,637 adverse reports that seem to run through the first couple of days in May. I haven't had a chance to read it in detail but here are the incidence of some scary terms:

149 - Hospitalized
53 - Permanent Disability
239 - Syncope (loss of consciousness)
99 - Neuro (includes references to neurologist, neurological, neuro exam)
7 - Guillian-Barre

If you want to read further information regarding the many serious questions concerning Gardasil, try these web sites:

• "10 THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT GARDASIL "
  
• Gardasil Lawsuits
  

Also, please check out this coverage of a release by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) which reported 385 individual GARDASIL adverse event reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) during the last six months of 2006.   The piece notes that "VAERS is a passive surveillance system and depends upon voluntary reporting of serious health problems following vaccination, even though safety provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 mandated that health care providers report vaccine adverse events.   There have been estimates that fewer than 10 percent, even as low as 1 to 4 percent, of adverse events which occur after prescription drug or vaccine use are ever reported to government adverse event reporting systems.   If only 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events associated with GARDASIL vaccination are being reported to VAERS, there could have been up to 38,000 ... which were never reported."   NVIC's President, Barbara Loe Fisher, wondered "how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all?"

Note that if Merck's marketing efforts were able to get the vaccine to be part of the federal vaccine liability program, something that will happen if the states adopt a requirement for its use before school, the company will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful.   That seems to have been a driving force of the marketing effort.   That process could be shortened if universal healthcare were adopted.

Looking a bit further, I came across a NY Times article in the Health section which discusses Gardasil.   The article is not concerned with side effects but talks quite a bit about cervical cancer and Gardasil, while wondering, "Should It Be Compulsory."   The author notes, "Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list.   This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women ... According to the American Cancer Society Web site, 'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent' ... A simple, quick, relatively noninvasive test (Pap Smear) that's part and parcel of routine preventive health care for women ... provides early warnings of cellular changes in the cervix that are precursors for cancer and can be treated ... Because even if you have the new vaccine, which protects against only some of the viral strains that may bring on cervical cancer, you still need to continue getting Pap smears."   In other words, cervical cancer is not that prevalent, its incidence is going down thanks to other, less costly alternatives, and those alternatives are necessary anyways.

My conclusions are: there is a huge effort to market a vaccine intended to wipe out a disease that has been effectively treated in other ways.   That marketing is focused on lobbying.   If there were universal healthcare, Hillarycare, if you will, that marketing effort would be simplified.   There are significant, serious and fairly common risks to the vaccine.   And cervical cancer is not quite at epidemic levels.   Actually it is effectively being tamed by medical procedures which are otherwise needed.

When you contemplate politics, consider the current popularity of so-called universal healthcare.   Consider that adoption of socialized medicine would place a huge amount of power into a single politically influenced body which might be easily swayed by the powerful pharmaceutical companies.   Consider how much easier it would have been for Merck to shove Gardasil down our throats if it only needed to fund federal election campaigns.

Now, consider that fiction writers and movie makers want you to fear a mythical day in the future when the country is under the control of an ultra-right-wing government and as yet unknown biological agents have made most women infertile.   Juxtapose that against a day much sooner when the country will be controlled by ultra-left wingers who have shoved universal healthcare down our throats, mandated the use of Gardasil, and women are infertile thanks to a side effect that was never even considered.   One of the above is a fictional work.   The other is, shall we say, a little more realistic.

Labels: Hillary, universal healthcare

Barack Obama is beginning to show his true colors.   You get this far into a campaign while claiming that you have "new innovative" solutions to the country's problems and eventually you are going to have to tell us what those solutions are.   Well, Barack is just starting to do that.   The trouble is, there is nothing new or innovative about the ideas he has.

Barack can solve the social security crisis which liberals told us didn't exist and was merely a fabrication made up by Bush.   Obama's solution?   Raise taxes and the retirement age.

Sure, Barack only wants to raise taxes on the filthy rich - those earning over the $97,000 earnings limit.   Those people are rich beyond their wildest dreams, living in homes, driving "pre-owned cars" and what not.   Such a tax increase is only reasonable, isn't it?   Finally we can take the thin veneer of "retirement plan" which liberals used to claim that social security wasn't merely welfare for the elderly.   As one political observer stated the case, "It would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in."

Obama notes that his plan would raise more than $1 trillion in ten years.   Let's change that to read, the plan would siphon $1 trillion from the nation's economy while simply making a socialist welfare program larger.

Will the AARP come out and endorse Obama?   Who really knows?   He is a liberal, after all. ^nbsp; The AARP supports almost any liberal policy.   But making the retirement age older might not resonate positively with them.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

The NY Times says it made a mistake when it gave MoveOn a discounted rate to run their childish ad questioning the loyalties of "General Betray Us."   Mistake?   I think not.   They knew exactly what they were doing and very much did it on purpose.   The mistake was in a misjudgment regarding how the public would view it.   The whole episode is indicative of a mistake in how they view the public.   They fully believe they can act in this fashion while maintaining status as an unbiased news source.   They are nothing but a mouthpiece for the far left.   They may not know it but we do.   And that's why the business continues to tank.   They have sold out their corporate objective - to make money - and adopted a purely liberal political agenda.   But there's nothing about this post that is news to anyone.

Labels: media bias

Gay groups celebrated a "significant victory" against those evil churches this past week.   They won their battle against the Ocean Grove (NJ) Camp Meeting Association, a group associated with the Methodist Church.   Gays wanted to be able to hold their civil union ceremonies at the group's boardwalk pavillion which the group claims is church property.   Gay groups saw an opportunity to punish the group for having the audacity to refuse them entry.   They petitioned the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection to revoke the location's property tax preferred status as a "Green Acres" site.   The state complied and gays predict the site will soon be open to gays for their ceremonies.   One leading trouble maker said, "How much more hell will the Camp Meeting Association and its national right-wing backer put the good people of Ocean Grove through?"   The association is in big trouble now.   What other choice do they have.   They can allow gays to conduct their mock weddings or they can pay the less than $200 per year property taxes on the site!!!!

Nobody but the lawyers won this skirmish.

Labels: Gay Marriage

Required reading for everyone from Investor's Business Daily: "George Soros: The Man, The Mind And The Money Behind MoveOn"

Labels: Liberalism

Rep. Peter King is being harshly criticized for his "racially charged comments" about mosques.   Every "progressive" voice has been raised in alarm over these so obviously ridiculous words.   Unfortunately, they are having trouble understanding precisely what it is that King said.

Progressives are extremely smart people.   Don't believe it?   Just ask one!   They do sometimes have great difficulty breaking down sentence syntax because syntax involves following certain rules.   That's too difficult for progressives.   They like simple sentence structure.   But let's look at what King said.

Progressive web sites have published the transcript of King's words as "Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country.   There are too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam.

That is an incorrect version of what he said.   The transcript should have read "Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country, too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam.   In other words, the phrase "who are sympathetic to radical Islam" describes the mosques.   King was saying not that there are too many mosques in this country, but rather, that there are too many mosques in this country that are sympathetic to radical Islam.

The meanings of the two phrases are quite different.   The second version, my version, if you will, is absolutely true.   There are too many mosques in this country which are sympathetic to radical Islam.   We absolutely must infilitrate them.   There is no doubt on this point.   King was right.   To claim otherwise or to manipulate King's words in the fashion the progressives have, is dishonest and dangerous.

Labels: terrorism

The media says the protests today in support of six persons of African American heritage, the so-called Jena Six, harkens back to the racism protests of the 50s and 60s.   There is one important difference, however.   The Jena Six did in fact gang up on and beat the shit out of a white man because he was white.   That may be incovenient but it is a fact and it has not been disputed.

Labels: media bias

Jimmy Carter says it is "almost inconceivable that Iran would 'commit suicide' by launching missiles at Israel."   We should listen to Jimmy because ... ?   He has demonstrated such a profound expertise in Iranian matters in the past?

Labels: Iran

The latest warnings from the media regarding global warming are that polar bears will go extinct and all the ice protecting Santa Claus from us is going to melt, sooner rather than later.   There are some inconvenient facts about these two warnings.   One involves comments made by Mitchell ­Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research.   Taylor says the bears will not perish if the sea ice melts.   He points to the polar bear population in areas where there is no ice including Davis Strait which is "crawling with polar bears" ... "It's not safe to camp there.   They're fat.   The mothers have cubs.   The cubs are in good shape."   So much for that mythology.   The other warning is a bit spurious.   The media tell us the frozen sea in the north is going to melt and open up the Northwest Passage, an historically unprecedented event.   Sorry folks but it has happened before.   As the National Post points out, there are documented cases of the Northwest Passage being open in the past including 1817, 1905, and 1944.   Somebody in the news media ought to do some homework sometime.   This is getting pretty boring.

Labels: global warming

Retired US General, John Abizaid, says, "I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon" and the AP concludes we should be able to live with a nuclear Iran the same way we live with other nuclear powers.   Abizaid claims Iran is well aware of the US's far superior military capability and that should be sufficient deterrent against them ever using a bomb.   Then why do they feel they should mortgage their entire society to obtain one?

The AP injects editorial into the news report by stating, that Abizaid's comments "represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House."   The news outlet goes on to state the current administration "speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions" and says "it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike."

In simplified terms, the AP's position is nuclear Iran OK, current administration evil.

The real question is not whether John Abizaid states his opinion that the US can live with a nuclear Iran.   The real question is whether we actually can live with it.   Perhaps a better question is who is "we?"   There is no question that Israel cannot live with an Iranian nuclear weapon.   After all, the Iranians and those they support have been unequivocable about stating their goals with respect to Israel.   They want it wiped off the map.   They want every Jewish person removed from the face of the Earth.   Can we really live with that?

Labels: Iran, media bias

Andrew Meyer ran over his allotted time.   He asked a question which some might argue crossed the line of reason.   He was asked to leave the podium and when he refused, was physically "escorted" from it by police.   When he didn't go quietly, police used the strongest non-lethal weapon in their arsenal to subdue him.   Now he has been granted as much time as he could ever possibly hope for.   Yet the media and public just don't seem to get the significance of this event.

The New York Times mocks Meyer's "Instant Political Martyrdom via YouTube" while noting that some students in the crowd thought it was right to arrest him via whatever means were available and that only 184 of 5,000 "invited" students might show up for a campus protest of the incident.   TV news reports question his motivation for asking the question in the first place, wondering if he is merely an attention seeker.   Much of the media has treated this incident with a smirk and a wink.   ABC says of it, "details from his online writings and videos raised the question of whether his harangue during the forum was genuine or some kind of stunt."   Several reports, including some aired on Fox News and other major news networks, claim the police were right to arrest and "taz" him when he resisted.

Police arrested Meyer for "resisting an officer and disturbing the peace."   There was some mention of inciting a riot someplace but I can't find it right now.   Formal charges could include ""resisting arrest with violence, disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions."   Interfering with school administrative functions?   Give me a break!   Disturbing the peace is a weak charge at best.   A man sleeping on a park bench while snoring loudly could disturb the peace.   The 200 student party down the street the other night following the high school football game disturbed my peace but police would barely send out a squad car to try to quiet the thing down.

Resisting arrest is a felony.   Being a pain in the ass is a misdemeanor at best.   Meyer's actions for which his removal was affected was being a pain in the ass, an inconvenience.   Police actions caused this to rise to the level of a felony.   Meyer was no Rodney King.   You've most likely seen the YouTube video.   It is unremarkable.   There was no violence on Meyer's part.   By contrast, when a person disagrees with a college speaker, as is frequently the case when conservatives wiggle their way onto campus, and throws a pie into the face of the speaker, there are seldom any arrests at all.   That is a far more violent act than the weak efforts put up by Meyer in order to finish having his say - exercising his constitutional rights, if you will.

I'm not really sure why there is not an overwhelming public and media outcry over this.   I find that almost as disturbing as the incident itself.

The Independant Florida Alligator, apparently a campus newspaper, says, "Aside from some minor traffic violations, Meyer has had no run-ins with the law."   He is not a habitual "criminal."   He does not habitually disturb the peace.

The paper also told us that hundreds of students attended the protest.   It should have been thousands but hundreds is certainly significant.   At least more than a handful of people understand that this is way over the line for acceptable police behavior.

There were four officers involved in Meyer's removal.   They were apparently not well trained in physical restraint.   That is more clear from the video than any other aspect of the incident.   One wonders what they would have done had this taken place before tasers were available.   Would they have clubbed him?

Tasers are not handcuffs.   They are not a low-level form of restraint.   They are an aggressive measure.   They are a weaspon.   The kid was not aggressive nor violent.   He resisted arrest no more than anybody should be expected to resist when the exact nature of removal had not yet been specified.   Police must be trained in restraint both in terms of being able to remove someone who may be distrubing the peace and in terms of restraining themselves from using the easiest available weapon.   We cannot simply silence all whose political views do not neatly fit the mainstream.   Both sides of the spectrum must agree to that.   When we silence a student for asking essentially a silly question, we make reasonable discourse impossible.   When we use a weapon on someone for being a pain in the ass, we open the possibility of using excessive force in almost any situation in which the police are inconvenienced.

There should be more public outcry over this.   The newsies should stick to the facts and stop questioning why a 20 something in this day and age would happen to have a web page expressing his political views.   Who exactly doesn't have such a "web presence?"   The media should not wonder if a person who posts videos on YouTube is some sort of oddball attention seeker.   Who exactly, among the nation's high school and college students, doesn't post videos on YouTube?

The media should focus more attention on actual events.   For example, if the kid caused a ruckus some other time, was arrested or suspended from school for disturbing the peace or if the officers had a history of questionable force levels.   For example, if the taser was used twice simultaneously on the kid, that should be reported since it could have killed him.   If the officer who tasered him just got the weapon in January and used it three times already, that should be the focus of reports.   We should not be interested in whether the person is a practical joker or not.   We should not be interested if he posts videos on YouTube.   We should be interested if he habitually causes trouble on campus.   We should be interested in campus police training and any history of violence against students.   The rest is poor journalism.

Labels: censorship

The September 10 issue of U.S. News has a cover article entitled "How to Win the Weight Battle."   It is, obviously, a piece about the "obesity epidemic."   Get used to seeing articles on this topic everywhere you look because serious journalists have begun to realize that the climate change thing doesn't have the legs they had hoped for.   The new subject du jour, the news media zeitgeist, if you will, is the obesity epidemic.   You had better read up on it since most cocktail party conversation will center around this hot topic.   And if you want to come off as really smart, there will be plenty of opportunity since most of what you read will be absolute garbage.   There will be enough contradictions to keep you conversing until long after you really should go to sleep.

The math on obesity is far easier for the lazy brains of journalists, at least initially, to chew on.   In my next posting, I'll be talking about the complexity of the math involved in fabricating the "global average temperature" and that's tough to swallow.   Obesity is easier to quantify.   There are no complex algorithms to digest.   The term is defined in various ways by different people but there is a relatively small range to ponder.   I have seen everything from more than 20% to 30% to 40% overweight, to having a BMI of 30 or greater.   But these are minor calculations when compared to planetary temperature averages.

Basically, a person can be at their optimal weight, merely overweight, or obese.   Most of us can look in the mirror and determine that we are not at our optimal weight.   Whether one is obese or merely overweight is a bit trickier but that doesn't confuse the situation since anyone merely overweight is apparently at risk of becoming obese.   And since government statisticians have been accumulating data on persons fitting a general definition of obesity, journalists have all sorts of numbers they can cite to fatten up their editorials.   This fact, however, will not prevent them from botching mathematical concepts.   For example, the US News piece includes a "factual" statement which reads, "All told, some 17 percent of kids are now obese, which means they're at or above the 95th percentile for weight in relation to height for their age; an additional 17 percent are overweight, or at or over the 85th percentile."   That's interesting!   34% of people are at or above the 85th percentile!   I thought only 15% would fit above the 85th percentile!   I wish they used that math when I was in school getting curved grades!   But my point is a minor one since what they meant to say is 34% of people are over the 85th percentile on medical charts.   That's indisputable, I suppose.

The trick is medical charts are manufactured from data and the data is collected, when?   If we compiled an obesity chart say in 1850 and used that to compare weights from say 1950, there would have been an obesity epidemic then!   Apparently, within the context of this discussion, there is one fact which is forgotten.   Human beings, like all species, are biologically predisposed to eat too much.   That is, as a matter of survival, all animals have evolved to store up nutrients in good times and use them in bad.   If humans didn't do that, there simply wouldn't be any humans today.   None of our species would have survived the many famines which have taken place over the millenia during which we have walked the planet.   Our problem is the availablity and cheapness of food sources today.   If food weren't plentiful and relatively cheap, we wouldn't be as fat as we are.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that our calculations of obesity aren't always quite accurate.   The US News article correctly points out that "analysis found that 17 percent of kids who have a BMI that nudges them into the overweight category actually have a normal percentage of body fat but are large boned or have a greater muscle mass."   As most of us know from other reports, athletes tend to find their BMIs in the trouble categories because their weight is greater due to increased muscle mass.   They are not truly obese, they're just counted as such within the official statistics!

I've gotten off track a bit.   I don't so much question whether there is or is not an "obesity epidemic."   I have to go to those cocktail parties and converse with friends, acquaintances and neighbors like you do.   The fact is I'm well overweight, most likely significantly obese.   I won't go get my BMI checked because I know the answer and am not interested in spending my waning days on the planet living on celery, lettuce and beans.   I can get away with claiming the global warming thing is a hoax but if I say something about obesity being over-blown, all I'll get is sneers.   So I won't.   Instead I'll move on to more heady analysis.

My problem with the journalistic approach to the "obesity epidemic" is the same as that with almost any subject addressed by the newsies.   Journalists are indoctrinated into the belief that everything must be solved in a centralized fashion.   That means government and the agencies of government.   Much of the US News article is focused on things the government can do to address the problem.   The government entites discussed in the article include everything from public schools to state and federal government.   The article's focus is pretty much about the failure of government to defeat obesity.   The author is trying to develop suggestions about what government can do to win the "war."   And this ignores the fact that government pretty much fails at everything it tries.

One of the author's suggestions is to reinstitute gym class at all schools.   The article notes that "90 percent of elementary schools don't provide daily physical education."   I don't know what you had in elementary school but we had some gym classes.   My gym class may not have been run by "Mr. Woodcock" but the teacher was one Bill Wosilius, then a recently retired linebacker for the St. Louis Cardinals.   He was a large, very strong man.   Mr. Wosilius usually sat on a chair while holding one of those rubber bombardment kickballs and have us perform calisthenics.   If you did something wrong - say a minor mechanical breakdown on a pushup - usually Mr. Wosilius would throw the ball at you as hard as he possibly could.   The only thing I got out of that was to question why he had been a linebacker rather than a quarterback.   Our classes lasted maybe 30 minutes after our regular teacher got done flirting with the former NFL dude.   We burned off maybe 100 calories and then returned to class hating organized exercise of any sort.

High school gym classes were worse in terms of physial fitness but far more fun.   We pretty much just played sports of all kinds.   The time allotted to games was insufficient, however.   It was one of our several 50 minute periods.   We spent the first and last 6-10 minutes getting dressed.   Attendance took other precious minutes away so there was usually only about 20-25 minutes to play games.   You can't get much exercise in 20 minutes and whenever we started a new game, the genius gym teacher would take several days away from playing the game in order to teach us the basic skills.   Invariably we knew the game better than the teachers unless they were coaching the particular sport.   Nobody got significant exercise from the class.

But today is oh so much different.   We're far smarter than they were back then, aren't we?   Today we have something called Coordinated Approach to Child Health ("CATCH") which includes gym classes in which students are kept moving.   There's no "lining up and waiting to take a turn."   Sounds almost exactly like recess to me.

CATCH involves far more than a completely disorganized gym class.   It also includes instruction in health habits.   I thought that's what health class was supposed to be before my kids came home with homework about bullying, dating and other subjects not particularly related to physical health.   So I suppose now we have progressed to the point at which we acknowledge some of our brighter efforts from the past were dead wrong?   We recognize now that many things from the past were better than those we replaced them with?   I can get onboard with that notion.

My only reservations about this author's overall approach is that every solution is addressed as if it is something to be centrally planned like some Communist Agricultural Ministry edict.   Most of the highly structured solutions to problems like this never get implemented properly.   Invariably there is a breakdown from higher up to lower down and things get mucked up.   The bottom line in all this is we want our kids to eat less, eat more healthily, and get out nand play more.   That's pretty simple in concept and it presumably worked in the past.   Leyt's no create costly government agencies charged with spending huge amounts of money to do what comes naturally.

Finally, what sense does it make to take a governmental agency like our public school system which has failed so miserably at its primary responsibility and load another one onto its back?   Our schools cannot accomplish their stated mission of educating our children.   What makes anyone think they can succeed at battling the obesity epidemic?

Labels: Obesity

We're all familiar with the "N word."   It turns out there are a bunch of words starting with letters of the alphabet which have been rendered unusable.   There's the "A word" which can be used to describe a beast of burden or one's butt, unless that is now another derogatory "B word," and that is seldom heard for fear of starting a PC riot.   I know at least one bad "C word" and several "D words" which shouldn't ever be used.   I could go on but (one t) what's the point.   (I should note that my parents told me to never "point")   Language is a difficult subject at best and English is more difficult than most.   There are all sorts of spelling and usage rules which complicate matters.   When we insert philosophy, sociology, and political correctness into the equation, things are pretty much impossible.   Our language itself is rendered unusable as a result.

This morning I awoke to commentary regarding the sexual harassment case against New York Knicks executive and coach, Isiah Thomas.   Thomas is accused of using the "B word" in derogatory reference to fellow team executive, Anucha Browne Sanders.   Thomas claims the term is only derogatory when used by a white man in reference to a black woman.   However, according to Thomas, it is perfectly fine when spoken by a black man in reference to a black woman.   One usage is indicative of racism, the other, a ?term of endearment?   One usage is derogatory, the other, normal, perhaps even polite conversation.

We have gone completely nuts with our language.   We can no longer distinguish between words which are always offensive to everyone and those which might be contextually offensive to individuals in certain circumstances.   The word Thomas is accused of using is "bitch."   It is a word which is commonly used in reference to female dogs, arguably the most revered pet in our society.   Specifically bitch is used to refer to female pooches involved in breeding practices.   When we refer to almost any male animal which is used in breeding, we refer to it as "stud."   However stud does not carry any negative connotations of which I am aware.   Rather, it is a positive term, something of a compliment.   If a woman calls a man, "stud," does he jot down notes so he can formulate a sexual harassment case against her in the future?

It is almost comical how our language gets ruined by usage of terms from other aspects of life within the context of sexually charged conversation.   There are dozens of words rendered unusable by second meanings which have evolved as our society has gotten over-sexed.   "Sexy" itself has been altered by that idiotic song from the 1990s, "I'm too sexy."   Now the term is mostly used either in tongue-in-cheek comments or by gay men employed by the fashion industry referring to women who are paying them tons of money to alter their looks.

This leads me to wonder if the problem really lies in making the term "sexy" comical.   Is that really what lies at the heart of the problem?   Is it now impossible for men to compliment women in a way which is intended to transcend Platonic relationships without using derogatory terms?   Was Isiah Thomas trying to imply he wanted to take his relationship with Anucha Browne Sanders to a new level but the only word that was available to him was "bitch" because heterosexual men don't use the term "sexy" any longer?   Was he trying to say, "my goodness, you look great today, I mean really great, really sexy, how about a date?"   The only thing he could come up with was "hey bitch" because there weren't words to describe his feeling adequately without sounding like a comedian?

Has our ability to communicate been permanently destroyed by PC-speak and other alterations to the meaning of words?

Are we too sexy for our language!?!

Labels: PC, racism

Now would be an excellent time to take retirement ... if ... you are presently employed by the Iranian military.   It is pretty much of a done deal that somebody is going to have to go into the country and destroy its nuclear facilities.   If the US let's Israel do it, there will be a sh!# storm that will have long lasting repercussions.   If the US does it, the world will complain vociferously but do nothing about it.   This will not in any way resemble the Iraq thing.   We're not going to occupy the country or attempt regime change.   All that's going to happen is a very short, intense war with limited goals of completely wiping out all Iranian military facilities.   That will be followed by some special op.s to render all nuclear facilities useless for good.   Yes, the Iranians may well be able to reconstitute their program but they won't be able to do it at the same facilities.   In a physical sense, they'll have to start over from scratch.

Labels: Iran

Newt Gingrich is right.   There is a very high likelihood of Democrats winning the presidency in the next election.   I'll go so far as to make a prediction.   Democrats will win the office as well as control of both houses of Congress.   But the win will not be nearly as one-sided as the media pundits believe it will be.   All I ask is that when you vote for Hillary, whether in primaries or the real election, you acknowledge responsibility for "Hillarycare."   That's the program which will be shoved down our throats upon her election, like it or not.   That's the program whose costs will be as real as the benefits will be illusory.   That's going to be the program which will define her presidency.   We will have to live with it from that poi9nt forward as Republicans will never be able to disassemble it once it is assembled.

Labels: Hillary

Reuters must not have had anything interesting to say today.   So they published this as "news": "Talking to al Qaeda? Don't rule it out, some say."

This ridiculous editorial disguised as news reasons, "proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war."   To bolster the argument, Reuters cites comments made by Terry Waite, including, "No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence."   Then to drive home the point, Jan Egeland is quoted as saying "I wouldn't rule out speaking to anybody."   Egeland's expert qualifications are "helped broker secret talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1990s."   That worked out well, didn't it?   I suppose it is difficult to deliver anything substantial when you are negotiating with a group whose sole reason for being is to push 100% of the Jews into the sea.   Then again, al Qaeda is a similarly difficult group to "negotiate" with.   They would want something back for stopping their attacks.   At a bare minimum, that would be 100% conversion to their brand of Islam, change of every political entity in the world to their style, and a few other minor inconveniences.

Negotiate with al Qaeda?   Sure that's reasonable.   But first we better get busy with the conversions and rewriting all those little constitutions.   Why would any editor in his or her right mind let something like this be released by Reuters?   Must be a slow news day.

Labels: media bias

Senator Hillary Clinton will give back $850,000 raised by that crooked fundraiser who is embarrassing her campaign.   The FBI is investigating whether the guy actually made the donations himself using "straw donors."   The Clinton campaign will send checks out to the named donors and then ask them if they would like to contribute the money again to her campaign.   The Clintons wil gladly "accept their contributions and ask them to confirm for our records that they are from their own personal funds."   I;ve got some news for Hillary, the source of their funds will be the check you sent them regardless of the original source for those funds is.   Is this a cleansing event?   There is some indication that the funds were the result of a corporate swindle.

Games are inextricably woven into the fabric of society.   We adore games of all varieties.   We constantly play games, work very hard to get better at the games we choose to play, and when we can't be personally involved, spend countless hours watching games played by others.

Game expertise is a highly valued commodity.   We not only heap praise and pile treasure at the feet of those who play games professionally, but also speak of those who have achieved distinction within those games as "legendary."   We call particularly noteworthy performances, seasons, and careers "historic."   We keep records for every positive and negative thing that happens in games.   Entire industries employing hundreds of thousands are focused on nothing more than the games people play.   It is impossible to ignore the fact that games are among the most important aspects of life and, because they are so important, the concept of cheating is as important a topic as any other.

With just a few keystrokes you can find books written on the subject of games babies play from birth to 1 year!   The real games begin, so to speak, as soon as a child has developed enough to grasp the notion of rudimentary game playing such as that involved in "shoots and ladders" or the card game, "war."   Then as kids reach the ripe old age of 4 or 5, we sign them up for the more highly structured, athletic games of soccer and tee-ball.   Communities devote huge resources in terms of valuable land, large sums of money, and countless hours of vounteer time to establish and maintain recreational programs centered around the various sports which are popular in our culture.   It is somewhat unusual to find a child who has never participated in any of the myriad organized sports available within our communities.   Those few children who do not participate in sports are expected to fill the gap with other activities, many of which are centered around games like chess, Karate, etc.   When our high school students put together their college resumes, participation in some sort of athletic activity is considered a valuable commodity.   Those who have not participated in varsity sports are at a disadvantage and must find other activities with which to fill the void.

A long time ago, somebody got the bright idea of taking a group of non-athletes and practicing them for the purposes of entertaining those watching athletic contests during down times.   Marching bands were formed to play music and put on shows at halftimes.   Bands of cheerleaders were put together to chant encouragement to game participants.   Then somehow, some way, another person got the brilliant idea to form games out of these "teams" of entertainers.   Marching band competitions became more important to the band members than the games at which they traditionally performed.   Then cheerleading itself became a sport.   Today, more money is spent by many parents on training their daughters for cheerleading competitions than on training for many other sports.   I once spoke to a parent about placing their daughter into formal training for a sport I was coaching.   I found myself apologizing about the costs involved.   They brushed aside my comments by telling me that, no matter what the cost was, it wouldn't be more than they already spend on their other daughter who is involved in high level cheerleading.   Games are so important to us that we invent games out of anything having to do with games.

A large number of young "scholar-athletes" have the substantial cost of their educations covered by money granted to them for no other reason than athletic prowess.   One of the most powerful institutions in American society is the NCAA, an organization which exists for no other reason than to monitor college athletics and the granting of purely athletic scholarships.   The NCAA has established a set of rules under which young athletes may be recruited by colleges.   It has also established a structure under which certain educational institutions are classed as Division I, II, or III, one of which offers a large number of purely athletic scholarships, another significantly less, and the third none at all.   Yet within that structure, aspiring athletes often find that purely "academic" scholarships and other forms of financial aid are more readily obtainable by the gifted college athlete.

A group of extremely important educational institutions is found within the membership of the "Ivy League."   The Ivy League is a federation formed exclusively for the purpose of conducting athletic contests between member schools!   These schools don't offer athletic scholarships because they are said to be more focused on education than athletics.   But if you've ever known a scholar-athlete who has been recruited by one of these schools, things aren't always exactly as they seem.   Even Ivy League scholar-athletes get many perks non-athletes do not.

Within a couple of the greatest educational institutions in America, there is a significant malaise over the student body today.   The universities of Notre Dame and Michigan are in a funk because their football teams lost their first two games this year.   This is said to be historically unprecedented.   The schools don't know what to do in reaction to this tragedy.   They are in a state of panic!   Students, boosters and faculty are calling for the teams' respective coaches to be fired.   There are t-shirts available on ebay to fire Michigan's coach Carr.   There is a web site devoted to firing Notre Dame coach, Charlie Weiss Now!   These two are under enormous pressure to win games and it is anyone's guess what they will do in reaction to that stress.   One thing is for certain, one of them will fail again this week since the two teams are slated to play each other.

Behind the scenes in college athletics there are any number of concerns which have nothing to do with winning specific contests per se.   As I said, the NCAA has rules about recruiting.   These rules are enforced with substantial penalties levied against offenders.   Athletic teams have been removed from numerous years of all-important post-season play due to recruiting violations.   Coaches engage in all sorts of bad behavior due to the pressure to produce victories.   We often hear and read numerous editorials about why these recruiting violations are reprehensible yet when we see events like this year's Michigan and Notre Dame football losses, it is easy to understand why coaches commit such heinous crimes.   Their jobs rest on their ability to produce victories at whatever the cost.

Similarly, it is almost easy to understand why professional athletes engage in similarly bad behavior.   Baseball is an enormous business.   The sport has had a record year for attendance and total revenues.   It is a multi-billion dollar industry even before you consider the very popular minor leagues, stuffed with 19 year old high school draftees.   Major League Baseball has had an incredible year by almost any measure with Barry Bonds breaking the career homerun record and several noteworthy performances such as that of Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees.   And baseball is rapidly spreading internationally.   It is very much a growth industry today.   Yet baseball has a dark cloud hovering over its head.   Bonds' record will forever contain an asterisk whether it has such a demarcation in the actual record books or not.   Bonds has been implicated as a performance enhancing drug user.   Many others' usage of steroids, human growth hormone and other substances has come to light as well.   Most fans, especially those who are devoted to the sport are upset about the number of records being broken in the era of rampant drug abuse.   But the pressure to perform at high levels is the underpinning of the praise and treasure these athletes have earned.   Many of them feel compelled to use drugs to get past injuries or make their seasonal numbers better and thereby earn them opportunities for more treasure.   It is easy to criticize the Barry Bondses of the world but their actions are at least partially traceable to our own.   Still, it is cheating and the enjoyment of any game is absolutely ruined by cheating.

Baseball is not by any stretch of the imagination the sport with the worst examples of cheating.   It is impossible to imagine so many 300+ pound men who can run 40 yards in under 5 seconds as the NFL has been able to assemble.   Some few sports writers have suggested that human beings simply have better nutritional and sports training advice today than they had in previous generations.   But that just cannot explain the number of super-athletic, enormous men.   Just a generation ago, a 250 pound defensive middle guard was more the norm than the exception.   In my youth, when John Mendenhall was an all-pro New York Giant defensive lineman, worthy of, at times, triple teaming, I met the man.   I thought he was a big guy.   Yet he was no taller than 6 foot and weighed in around 250 at peak condition.   He tore up the league.   Today his size, or lack thereof, would preclude pro scouts from even taking a look at him.   Heck, most big time colleges wouldn't give him a chance because of it.   The high school teams in my area have several kids far bigger than Mendenhall.

There is no test for HGH which is in common usage.   Many of the tests for other substances are useless because they aren't applied with enough regularity - it's too easy to cheat.   Testosterone, for one, can be effectively used without any trace being found during the intermittent testing the NFL conducts.   There is no question that NFL players regularly use performance enhancing drugs and that has a lot to do with the size and athleticism of today's players.   I honestly question whether there is a single example of a professional football player who has not used performance enhancing drugs.   But that is, as we learned yesterday, just one example of cheating in football.

There was a football game Sunday between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots at which, the NFL has determined the Patriots violated league rules by using cameras to decipher their opponents defensive signals.   This sort of thing has often been implicated in baseball where sign stealing is considered part of the game, at least to a point.   In baseball, simply knowing what your opponent is going to do isn't as much a big deal as it is in football.   In baseball, even if you know the curveball is coming, you still have to hit the darn thing.   Even if you know the runner is going to steal, you still have to throw him out.   There are always decoy signals and execution, even when you know what the opponent is trying to do, is still very difficult.   In football, knowing that a particular zone is going to be left open because this or that linebacker is going to blitz is quite another thing.   Knowing what a defense is going to do changes the entire game and makes it almost easy for the offense to succeed.   That's what the Patriots have been accused of doing in the past and that's what they stand accused of doing the previous Sunday, cheating to alter the outcome of the contest.   The Patriots must be punished for their breaking of the rules.

Games are extremely important in our society.   Cheating ruins games.   Cheating has to be dealt with harshly or games are useless.   Football with cheating is no more entertaining than "professional wrestling" is a sport.   The NFL has not yet formally chosen a penalty for the Patriots but all indications are that it will be a weak one.   ESPN reporters claim the league may take away future draft choices and that most certainly will hurt the team.   I have a better penalty in mind.   Usually when a player cheats at poker, his winnings are taken away and he is removed from the table.   When a friend cheats you at a board game and you catch him, that ends the game and the cheater is the loser.   The NFL should declare the Jets the winner of the game and the Patriots the loser.   That's how cheating should be dealt with.   otherwise the game should be relegated to status as fictional entertainment like pro wrestling.   And baseball ought to treat the records made in the steroids era as invalid.   Either that or all performance enhancing drugs should be allowed since that is the only way to level the playing field.

If we are to continue as a society, most certainly we are going to need games.   Games require rules.   Cheaters should be punished in a manner which fits their crimes.   If we can't play nice, we shouldn't play at all.

Labels: Sports, Sports figures

If by chance you missed this, please take a look now.   There is an article in the NY Times which expresses much of the sentiment I have about the global warming hoax.   It is entitled "'Feel Good' vs. 'Do Good' on Climate" and is written by John Tierney whose work I don't generally cite.   Tierney points out that even if global warming is caused by humans and will result in the worst case scenarios predicted by the IPCC, there are other more pressing and threatening issues we should be focusing on.

Labels: global warming

Has it really been six years since September 11, 2001?   It feels simultaneously like 6 minutes, 6 days, 6 decades, and/or 6 eternities.   As I try to avert my ears and eyes from the remembrance ceremonies in my town, across the region, and on the television set, I wonder why the day brings up such odd emotions and why these emotions seem so raw and new, not having healed over the past 6 years.   I think I need to understand the nature of these feelings in order to move on, if it is possible to ever move on again.

I've lost family members, close friends, and others before.   I believe myself hardened to these sorts of losses.   I know from experience that time heals all wounds.   Grieving comes to an end at some indeterminate, vague point in the future.   It has always worked that way before and there is no particular reason I should believe it won't always.   Yet, for me, September 11 is now and seems like it will always be different.

My quandry begins with the event itself.   I'm like most people in this country and around the globe.   My proximity to the event, a couple miles away at the time the planes flew into the buildings, doesn't actual color my experience particularly much.   I felt as if it did for a couple years but the fact is the event itself only complicated a usually fairly complicated NYC commute.   It was just another inconvenience.   By comparison, my commute during the east coast blackout was a significantly more arduous task than getting home on September 11, 2001.

For some time I thought maybe the attack was symbolically against all parents at work in office buildings.   But there are so many office buildings in Manhattan, let alone all five boroughs, New York State, the tri-state region, or the entire country for that matter, that it is difficult to pin it down on that.   There have been other tragic attacks against people working in office buildings.   Those seem to be on the news just about every night.   And the Oklahoma City bombing didn't have this kind of effect on me.   My feelings really just cannot be blamed on that.

I, like most people, have but loose connections to the victims themselves.   Sure, there were a couple acquaintances I had seen recently, or not very recently, who were victims.   But they were very much acquaintances, not close friends by any stretch.   There was a guy I worked with who was employed by the state of New York but our work together was more as adversaries than as teammates or friends.   I never took much note of him in life.   I can't have strong feelings about him in death.   There was the kid who worked at the same place I did when I was a child.   We were friends back then but he was several years younger than I.   We, of course, did not stay in touch.   I thought him a good kid and I feel sorry that he was one of the victims.   But those feelings are no stronger than they are for any other of my childhood acquaintances or friends who passed under normal or unusual circumstances.

The fact that I see widows and the children of victims in my daily rounds of my home town might have some impact on the way I perceive the event.   Yet I've known other widows and fatherless or motherless children who have lost their loved ones in terrible tragedies.   I shouldn't feel any more for the "survivors" of September eleventh.   A child whose father or mother perishes in a horrific car crash while on their way home from work, was shot dead while performing their duty as a police officer during a routine traffic stop, or died of some bizarre illness contracted because they swam in the ocean with a small cut on their foot, is no less deserving of sympathy than the "orphans" of September 11.

Sometimes I wonder if my feelings have something to do with the fact that I live in a place where many people commute daily into "the city," actually worked in the WTC but got out virtually unscathed, and are themselves full of the complex mix of emotions I feel about the day.   Many of these people are also still sad or even depressed.   Perhaps what I am feeling is the result of being within and amongst a bunch of grieving people.   Sometimes when one is with other grieving people, one has a sort of contagion to others' grieving emotions.   I have, from time to time, been obligated to attend funeral services for people related to close friends and family.   I often attend such services without any particular personal sadness.   But seeing the deceased's loves ones broken apart emotionally can sometimes make me very sad.   I have sometimes found myself crying as a result of relative telling stories about the deceased even though I didn't know the person at all!   Right down the street, there is a crowd of my neighbors commemorating the day at a memorial built to remember the thirty odd townspeople who were murdered.   The media trucks are there.   You will probably see something about them on the news this evening.  Maybe my own depression over September 11 is a sort of grieving contagion?   At the same time I recognize that this sort of sadness is the most fleeting variety.   Generally it passes at least as quickly as it catches.   This cannot be to blame for the general sense of sadness September 11 conjures up in me.

I've spent countless hours trying to sort out my 9-11 emotions to no avail.   Perhaps it is the confluence of all the things I have noted above.   Grieving is complex.   Humans aren't all that good at it.   Perhaps I'm just an emotional weakling who cannot deal with anything that isn't cut and dried.   Maybe it's easier to deal with grief when one is closer to a tragedy and can easily identify the cause of one's sadness.   I can't say for certain but it seems as if there is something else at work in this.   The harder I try to identify it, the further I get away from resolution.   This morning I decided to just let the issue drop.   I vowed to avoid introspection as well as any kind of September 11th remembrance.   I can keep myself busy and avoid even thinking about it, can't I?

As I went about my business and kept my head down, so to speak, I was doing pretty well.   Then all of a sudden I had a gotcha moment when the attacks invaded my brain again and things came into clearer perspective.   It finally struck me why September 11th bothered me so much and why I can't seem to get over it.   The reason the terrorist attacks have so deeply saddened me is because it called into serious question the faith I once had in my fellow man.   It was a direct assault on how I perceive other human beings.

The attacks themselves are only a part of the equation, a big part but just one of several nonetheless.   The years which have followed are no better in terms of seeing things differently.

It starts with the motivation and tactics of the attackers.   The motivation is basically to throw our whole society into chaos so we will all convert to Islam, the extreme fundamentalist version of Islam they favor.   The tactics are to attack the absolute weakest individuals in our society, the unarmed while they are at work.   I don't know where to begin to explain how this makes me feel.   I understand ideological warfare but that is usually conducted between two armies.   This was cheap, cowardly, and an assault on innocents.   That human beings would stoop to such levels is at best embarrassing.   The Islamic terrorists often speak of their collective bravery and certainly some of their attacks have involved this quality.   The WTC attacks, however, involve the worst sort of cowardice.   If the US had retaliated not by overthrowing the Taliban but rather by deliberately and exclusively bombing the hell out of civilians in Afghanistan, the two acts would be comparable.   Collateral is one thing but deliberate targeting of innocents is criminal.   That is the gameplan of bin Laden - target innocents because they do not have the capacity to fight back.

The attacks were not the only aspect to September 11 which has destroyed my faith in mankind.   During the days immediately following the attacks, I felt as if Rudy Giuliani restored some of my faith.   He dealt with his grief the only way he knew how - by working hard to rectify the situation.   He didn't do a perfect job of things but who could?   What he showed us, however, was that it was possible to grieve openly and yet return to work daily.   He showed us that there was a job to do and we were all better off if we faced up to the task.

Other folks acted in a similar fashion to Rudy.   Every day people vounteered to go down into the hole and dig out toxic chemicals, rubble and ... human remains just so that the rest of us could benefit.   They took great care to preserve the human remains so people who lost loved ones would have something to bury.   They put themselves very much in harm's way as we have seen with the deaths of a number of cleanup crew members.  -; Many did this on a voluntary basis - they were not performing their duties as part of a paying job.   Some were even retired before the attacks yet went there specifically for our benefit.

Our government reacted to the attacks by, among other things, creating a fund with which to "compensate" victims families.   The fellow who was charged with the responsibility of dividing up the fund did an admirable job though I'm sure not everybody feels that way.   To me, the task was an impossible one but one which was accomplished with as little controversy as humanly possible.   Rudy Giuliani, the workers who cleaned up the site, and those who worked tirelessly to compensate the grieving families all did work which earned my personal admiration.   Yet other things cause me to still see the post-9-11 period in a negative way.

First and foremost, there were the grifters who claimed they were personally harmed by 9-11 when they suffered nothing.   There were claims for compensation by people almost completely unaffected by the event.   There was a good deal of insurance fraud.   There were folks who ran their businesses from thousands of miles away who made claims to the government for assistance due to 9-11.   Heck, even the International Red Cross got into the money grab act, collecting billions of dollars without any real intention of using the money to help the victims' families.   Profiting from someone else's grief is one thing but doing so when that harms genuine victims and doing so under false pretenses is horrible.   Doing so when the genuine victims are your countrymen, your neighbors, your friends is an abomination.   The grifters who tried to steal from the sufferers is very hard to take but, for me, that's not the worst part.

In addition to the grifters who directly and deliberately stole from the victims are those who questioned almost everything about the compensation.   Some folks rightly questioned the notion that money would do anything to make the people whole.   Others wanted to make sure the government treasure was used properly.   But some folks actually criticized the victims' families because a number of them were upper middle class or even wealthier than that.   Never mind the fact that a good portion of the victims were first responders, administrative staff, government employees, etc. many of whom were arguably underpaid to begin with.   Even the wealthy bond traders deserved to be compensated for our nation's inability to protect them in the workplace.

And what of the Cant-Fitz people who were well compensated in life?   Should they have received less because they worked their butts off, found opportunity and generally succeeded?   To even think along these lines is problematic.   There was a fair deal of jealousy on display when anyone spoke of the pre-attack income levels of the victims in the context of the compensation fund.   But this wasn't nearly the worst part of the overall scenario.

What has really bugged me in the aftermath of 9-11 is the way in which politicians acted.   Now I'm not so wet behind the ears that I expect wonderful behavior from our elected officials or those who vie to unseat them.   Politics is more a blood sport today than it has ever been.   But some of these peoploe whould think twice before they speak.   Any politician who so much as once lived in New York or any state adjacent to it is laying claim to credit for the recovery effort.   Many of these "heroes" did nothing more than schedule a public speaking event during the cleanup.   But they want to use the worst event in American history to get themselves elected to high office.   I'm not going to name names.   You figure it out for yourself.   But my point here is these people have no more dignity of humanity than the grifters who stole money from the victims.

I sit here in September 11, 2007 and look back at that day 6 years ago.   It's difficult to believe it has been 6 years.   It seems like longer ago than that but I suppose most really big historic events are like that.   At the same time, my nerves are raw enough that it seems as if the attacks were yesterday.   The only thing missing is that stream of sour smoke which wafted through the air over my house from September 11 until I-don't-know-when, after which the wind direction shifted.   I doubt I'll ever be able to forget the day.   I suppose several decades from now when most of the adults from that time are gone, the memory will be more vague, like Pearl Harbor Day is to the current generation of forty and fifty somethings.   But I expect the history books will contain more than information about the attack itself.   I expect the whole episode may be documented as a very bad display of behavior by an entire society.   And that's what bugs me.   I thought we were better than that.

Labels: September 11

There is a piece today on Newsbusters which brings into serious question the nature of the scientific consensus embodied by the IPCC's official releases.   Apparently, divergent opinions on the subject matter of publications, issued as if they represent collaborative efforts, have been largely ignored or deleted.   Most disagreement has been hidden behind the curtain.   If this business is as serious as we keep hearing it is, the time is now to force the IPCC into absolute transparency.

If the IPCC were instead the Bush administration, the disagreement among scientists that has not been made public would be branded an evil conspiracy.

There's no room for a double standard when so much is at stake.

Labels: global warming

Al Gore has one big fat problem.   The man likes to eat.   He also finds himself making a career out of this global warming hoax.   Trouble is, the two don't exactly go hand in hand.   Now the extreme left, vegan, utopian ultra-liberals are speaking out against the wanna-be world ruler.   They can get behind his campaign to change a few lightbulbs, take away the personal automobile, and radically alter society, but they will NOT leave him alone when it comes to his choice of diet.

This is only the beginning but the PETA folks are jumping all over Gore's consumption of meat.   As we've told you before, if global warming real