just trying to eat my waffles

January 20, 2007

The Audacity Of Hope (Arkansas)

This was unexpected.

Hillary says, "me too."

Not only does Hillary announce with a video, just like Bronco, she even got the AP writer to include a link to her website, just like Bronco.

Notice that the video shot is not wide enough for you to see the rug? That's because Bronco Bomber pulled it out from under her on Tuesday.

Posted by: annika at 02:25 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I can't wait for the candidate debates! She'll win the primary, and tank in the general. It's not 1992 anymore.

Posted by: Casca at January 20, 2007 03:44 PM (2gORp)

2 Casca, I used to be optimistic about Hillary, (yes optimistic). Now, the more I think about her, I'm beggining to doubt that she can win the nomination. Bomber will be formidable, as he has the antidote for every one of her negatives. He's consistent on the war, he has no voting record to speak of, he's not from any political dynasty, he has charm, he's not perceived as "too liberal," and chicks dig him. By contrast, the nutjobs will protest hillary at every turn, she has to answer for her Iraq vote, her last name is Clinton and I think we're all tired of the Bush-->Clinton merry-g0-round, she's got two public personas: wooden and/or abrasive, no one has forgotten her socialized medicine boondoggle, and half the women in this country despise her, not to mention three fourths of the men. If Hilary doesn't win the nomination, who does. Since I won't be blogging next year, let me make my preliminary prediction now (subject to change, of course): John Edwards - Bronco Bomber.

Posted by: annika at January 20, 2007 03:55 PM (1EshY)

3 "Since I won't be blogging next year" *GASP* WH...WHAT?!

Posted by: reagan80 at January 20, 2007 05:35 PM (wkyrW)

4 Bronco is the new kid in town. His bloom will fade. Next year this time, people will be saying... "What were we thinking?" Candidates are only the faces of campaigns, like actors are to movies. The Clintons own the apparatus in the D world. Bronco aint got a snowballs chance to make it through the primary process.

Posted by: Casca at January 20, 2007 06:09 PM (2gORp)

5 This is not the BCS Championship; Casca knows what he's talking about here. The Clinton steamroller machine will be in high gear, and all the geeks will come out of the woodwork to try to re-live the good old days. She will be the nominee, and our anti-Hillary will be John McCain. Or, if you will, President McCain. McCain-Rice beats Clinton-Obama. Any questions?

Posted by: shelly at January 20, 2007 06:52 PM (SLFj+)

6 Casca, Shelly, you may be right. the clinton machine is already up and running. Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia. "He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

Posted by: annika at January 20, 2007 10:20 PM (1EshY)

7 I'm not down with the McCain thang. It's still early. In my heart, I'm waiting for another guy who is tanned, rested, and ready.

Posted by: Casca at January 21, 2007 12:19 AM (2gORp)

8 Remember that taking a pasting like we just did in November does wonders for the arrogant assholes in our psrty who are looking for the perfect conservative; after they put up Hillary, everyone will opt for the the ticket that can beat the Wicked Witch of the North. I'm here to tell you that it is McCain and Rice if we want to hold 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for eight more years. The tanned, rested guy is Mitt, but she beats him.

Posted by: shelly at January 21, 2007 03:23 AM (SLFj+)

9 i dont know. giuliani spent a lot of time in jamaica. can you get a tan in queens?

Posted by: annika at January 21, 2007 09:15 AM (NMDyy)

10 C'mon kids, it was a Nixonian reference! Who's Nixonian???

Posted by: Casca at January 21, 2007 09:35 AM (2gORp)

11 I want Walter Williams to run so I can hear him tell stories about Mrs. Williams and everything else. I don't think either cHillary or B.O. are gonna make it all the way to the White House.

Posted by: Joules at January 21, 2007 12:13 PM (u4CYb)

12 Notice that the video shot is not wide enough for you to see the rug? That's because Janet Reno is munching the gaping, fooul, fetid ooze-crusted thing!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at January 21, 2007 06:56 PM (cOyko)

13 I am your father, Red.

Posted by: Casca at January 21, 2007 07:15 PM (2gORp)

14 Children, Casca is ttrying to relate what happened in '60 for the first TV debate beteen a pale, overly made up Nixon and a tanned, rested JFK. The TV told the story, and it was still just in black and white (for those too young to remember when we didn't have color TV, let alone HD-TV). Nixon was totally prepared, but looked like a ghost; JFK spent the week at his sister, Pat Lawford's place, right down from where I live. Pat and Peter lived right on Santa Monica beach, on the sand. Jack was body surfing and tanning all week long and looked like a Million Bucks. That won the election, right there and then.

Posted by: shelly at January 22, 2007 08:16 AM (SLFj+)

15 I wrote a great reply to Shelly's senior moment, but the filter won't let me post it. After ten minutes... I say fug it.

Posted by: Casca at January 22, 2007 10:36 PM (2gORp)

16 Oh, OK, the short version is that Nixon was tanned, rested and ready in 1968 when he arose from the political dead, and thumped some liberal from Minnesota. Don Hewitt was the producer of the 1960 television debate, enough said. Nixon was set up.

Posted by: Casca at January 22, 2007 10:39 PM (2gORp)

17 Nixon WAS set up, but it was the last time he let that happen. He seldom made the same mistake. He did some great things during his term, just too bad that he was stupid about the break-in. That was a great lesson in how not to deal with adversity for those watching.

Posted by: shelly at January 23, 2007 04:06 AM (SLFj+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Alternate Bronco Bombers

The real Bronco Bomber, for you aviation enthusiasts. Apparently, not a reliable piece of equipment.

Or, if you prefer, here's the most famous Bronco, bombing.

Posted by: annika at 01:35 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Paid Advertisement

I know Mark Steyn says our population is aging, but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: annika at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

January 18, 2007

Wrongful Death

For the last week, the big news here in Sacramento has been the stupid "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest at KDND FM, in which one of the participants died. Now, the case has been taken by Sacramento's pre-eminent plaintiff's firm. I know these guys and trust me when I say they mean big money. But it's a perfect plaintiff's case too. Just look at these facts:

Nearly 40 minutes before kicking off the contest, the "Morning Rave" hosts discussed the dangers of water poisoning. One DJ mentioned he had once drunk two gallons of water.
"Can't you get water poisoning and, like, die?" asked another host.
"Your body is 98 percent water," a co-host responded. "Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"
Someone in the background was heard asking about "that poor kid in college," apparently referring to Matthew Carrington, who died in 2005 after an all-night fraternity hazing.
"That's what I was thinking," a host responded.
"Yeah, well, he was doing other things," someone else said.
About two hours into the contest, a woman who identified herself as Eva called the show. She warned the hosts that "those people that are drinking all that water can get sick and possibly die from water intoxication."
One host replied that "we're aware of that." Another said the contestants had signed releases, "so we're not responsible."
"And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, then they're going to throw up and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right?" one host said. One of the hosts then asked a DJ stationed in the kitchen with the contestants, "Is anybody dying in there?"
"We got a guy who's just about to die," he said.
"Make sure he signs the release," the host replied.

I know what you're thinking. Hey, she signed a release. But with that fact pattern, I don't think the assumption of the risk defense will hold water.

So to speak.

Anyways dude, if I just had a referral fee on that lawsuit, I could probably retire now.

Posted by: annika at 01:51 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Whoa. Yeah, that's a shitty fact pattern. It took the collaboration of a lot of really dumb people to make that one come together. A regular moron-a-thon. And DJs wonder why lawyers are always spoiling their fun. This is what happens when they don't. It does make me wonder a little about those days back at OCS when they'd make us drink a minimum of 3 gallons of water a day -- and sometimes more.

Posted by: Matt at January 18, 2007 04:18 PM (10G2T)

2 Fuck Matt, I was on the trail end of the water discipline school, lol. Woe unto the candidate with an empty canteen. No wonder we had so many heat casualties.

Posted by: Casca at January 18, 2007 05:31 PM (2gORp)

3 But Matt, did they do it in that same timeframe as the radio contestants, then keep you from going to the bathroom? I think you all would've sweated it out if you were doing anything physical (no, I don't know what OCS involves, but I do imagine that there are physical components and classroom components, and that during the physical ones you might actually need that much water. Possibly.) Anyway, on topic: Ouch! It's one thing to not know an activity is dangerous, but it's a whole other thing to proceed in the face of warnings. What the heck were they thinking? Also (for the legal types out there (Anni, Law Fairy, etc.)): Multiple stories kept on mentioning the release forms/waivers. Would those really protect the radio station? I mean, on the one hand, I have a hard time imagining that a waiver would extend so far as to absolve this station from this event. On the other hand, there's a definite risk of death from skydiving, rock climing, etc., and I'm sure waivers there have some sort of force. So, would a CYA document really protect the radio station here?

Posted by: elmondohummus at January 18, 2007 05:33 PM (xHyDY)

4 They all deserve to lose.

Posted by: shelly at January 18, 2007 06:25 PM (SLFj+)

5 I know my feelings are simplistic but at what point are people responsible for their own actions? This seems purely political to me: A seemingly very nice woman died. Her husband, kids, family, and friends are obviously heartbroken. The local community, after the news went wall-to-fucking-wall with the coverage, saw the faces of victimhood and were saddened and shocked.....and more importantly wanted a scapegoat. After all, this is a story that does nothing but suck - most of all because of its insane stupidity. But when all is said and done, why is this on the station? I'm not arguing the legal points that you lawyers brought up: I don't know the law like you all do. Just because the law states something, however, doesn't make it morally, ethically, or logically correct. I have had this same argument, though, many times with people who think the tobacco companies are responsible for an individual choosing to suck on a coffin nail. I guess that I'll never "get it." We live in a country full of victims.

Posted by: blu at January 18, 2007 06:34 PM (IYDwv)

6 Methinks our girl is starting to think like a P.I. lawyer. Tsk. Tsk. Did you know that mechanical devices are the greatest stimuli to womens' orgasms? The chief one being a Mercedes 500 convertible, followed by a BMW convertible. Which one is it, Annie?

Posted by: shelly at January 18, 2007 06:48 PM (SLFj+)

7 There was a local radio dickwadd here who was trying to stick up for the DJ's and saying that it wasn't their fault etc. Well, it wasn't all their fault, but I think they should be drowned in the ocean anyways for having such a stupid contest in the first place. That's what happens when you put people on the air who don't have enough talent to be interesting and resort to gimmicks.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 19, 2007 04:21 AM (mtblU)

8 Blu, You are a hard fellow for sure. Woe be it to a child of yours that comes into the house wearing a team jacket that keeps him no warmer than the plain version but costs twice as much. Blu, we are not all rewarded with the same accoutrements at birth. Some are strong, some swift, some dumb and most greedy wanters of something for nothing. We cannot waive moral authority nor allow moral turpitude to be condoned or excused because individuals are "free" agents and in full control of their destiny. Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired. This is especially true when advertisers are allowed by lassie fare (one bowl of kibble) capitalist societies to withhold and distort information while distributing drugs and devices disguised as important instruments of status and personal fulfillment. We all make calculations every day about what constitutes acceptable danger to our welfare. We drive 75 miles an hour in a machine that has no hope of protecting us should there be a catastrophic failure of certain parts or of another driver and his/her machine. What is the alternative? But, if a manufacturer hides certain facts about the integrity of their vehicle so that your choice is deflected toward their entrant in the field should you or your heirs have no recourse because you were a free agent? The woman who died of water intoxication was lured into an event that had a high likelihood of causing harm. Whether she acted recklessly in the face of the facts and warnings or did the station recklessly obscure the facts, is what the jury will decide.

Posted by: strawman at January 19, 2007 10:12 AM (9ySL4)

9 Loosely defined, negligence is doing something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or failing to do something the reasonably prudent person would do, which results in harm to another person. Would the reasonably prudent person have done what these dj's did? Case closed.

Posted by: annika at January 19, 2007 10:50 AM (zAOEU)

10 "The woman who died of water intoxication was lured into an event that had a high likelihood of causing harm. Whether she acted recklessly in the face of the facts and warnings or did the station recklessly obscure the facts, is what the jury will decide." Fair enough.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:18 AM (IYDwv)

11 Annika, How does the law account for individual responsibility? Nobody poured that water down the woman's throat. I'm sorry, but this was an accident. But, I guess there are no more accidents. A family is devastated, a community saddened, and lawyers see dollar signs, so somebody is going to pay. I had a long talk last night with a media person here in Sacramento, and she was upset and surprised that the local and national media hasn't shown a bit of balance covering the story. At the press conference yesterday, she said that she was the only reporter asking about individual responsibility.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:34 AM (IYDwv)

12 "Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired." No offense, Straw, but I call bullshit. I guess in your world people are perpetual victims with 2 digit IQs and an inability to make decisions based on analysis and logical reasoning. I've managed to get through three decades of life without having my free will diminished. For those dopes out there that are overwhelmed by the power of marketing, I suggest you turn off your TV and pick up a book. But, hey, your thought process falls right in line with your politics. You don't think people can take care of themselves thus the nanny state. At least, you are consistent in your logic.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:41 AM (IYDwv)

13 The tort law should provide economic incentives to minimize social harm. The relative benefit of allowing people to behave recklessly in paying people to do things that pose a substantial danger to life and limb, even when they've received warnings that doing so may lead to death, is not as high as the value of the lives endangered and the social incentives provided by judgment to prevent other similarly situated people from doing this in the future. There should be a duty of care to people whom one is paying to participat ein a contest; the contest host likely has more information about the risks than the general public and, more important, other people, including spouses and children, have an interest in this woman's life. It's true, people taking risks that are well known and unavoidable, such as mountain climbing, shouldn't be able to sue people for doing those things and being harmed when the structure of the activity is entirely in the participant's hands or the risk is unavoidable. Risky behavior may be valuable, and people should be allowed to take risks. But this is more like "bare knuckle boxing" or paying someone to kill himself. That behavior is socially harmful; it leads to the death and maiming of people that have value to society, may not know the risks themselves, or may not undertake these risks but for the host's blandishments. A notion of free will and individual responsibility should nto be applied in a cock-eyed way, because here the station and its employees had decisions to make too. We're not talking about the car that can't survive every accident or the death on the high school football field from normal playing activity. Unavoidable tragedies happen, even if people, including people with a duty of care, take reasonable precuations. But I shouldn't be allowed to pay you to do something for my amusement when I know it carries with it a deadly risk. And, if that risk transpires, I should be held accountable at least for my part of the ensuing harm. It's doubly important that people be held to account when they know of deadly risks and do not warn participants. There is simply no social value in alcohol or water drinking contests, and people that promote these things when people get killed should be held to account. The law should be hard-headed. It's not about compensated every wrong. There is such a thing as damnum absque injuria, injury without legal remedy. But it should be concerned with maximizing economic incentives to prevent socially harmful behavior, one of the most serious of which is the avoidable loss of life.

Posted by: Roach at January 19, 2007 12:15 PM (mC8X3)

14 Thanks Roach. That's the best argument that I've read since the incident occured. I still am interested how the legal system accounts for for the individual's responsibility. Would a "reasonble" person decide to "compete" in that stupid contest? Maybe, Straw is right, and I give humanity too much credit. Sad and pathetic if true.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 12:35 PM (IYDwv)

15 Roach, Well argued. Blu, I am actually a very big proponent of personal responsibility. I don't believe anything is ever forgotten, I believe the circumstances leading to very outcome can be understood and learned from. I have a no excuse policy for almost everything. Accidents are things that happen to us that could not be foreseen and avoided. A finisher I fired 10 years ago had the gall to call me yesterday to tell me he had used me as a reference. Ten years ago he came into my office to tell me of and accident he had just had and the table that was ruined as a result. He said that while rolling the cart with the table on it he bumped into a door jamb pitching the table to the ground. I asked if he would, off the clock help with the repair and refinishing. He looked annoyed and repeated that it was an accident and, hence, he bore no responsibility. He lost his job. I firmly believe that to the extent that they can (and here is where we part) people must take responsibility for their choices. But you don't want to allow for circumstances that manipulate by design the information that is required for an informed choice nor do you seem to care that the profit motive inherent in our system tries desperately to separate people from their money by means that often strain credulity. I am not so harsh on those that lose the battle. I think they went up against a stacked deck and should be compensated and the deck stacker punished meaningfully. 5 million to McDonaldÂ’s for excessively hot coffee that they had been warned about is not excessive. I would however, pay the victim something reasonable and put the balance into a general account established to restore those harmed where no award could be made due to the insolvency or some other scumbag maneuver of the plaintive Blu, we live in a country where 60-70% of the population believes in the paranormal, angels, alien abductions, god, Taro cards, palmistry, iridology, acupuncture, chi, meridians, hot rocks, aroma Â“therapyÂ”, chiropractic "medicine", massage Â“therapyÂ”, telekinesis and a host of other things more far fetched. What is the responsibility of a society to provide its populace with the education that will allow them to make informed decisions and how hard is it really to dupe people? We live in a nation where the childish wish is elevated to serious consideration. Where universities psi departments pay people to study spoon bending, distant sight, alien abduction stories and whether 3 card Monte should be an Olympic sport.

Posted by: strawman at January 19, 2007 01:15 PM (9ySL4)

16 And to top it all off... She didn't win the Wii.

Posted by: RightWingDuck at January 19, 2007 04:44 PM (bX+n4)

17 The station new there was a theoretical risk. As the on air discussion suggests, they didn't have a good idea beyond that. This really was a freelance medical experiment and should have been approved by a Medical Research Review Committee before being performed.

Posted by: michael at January 19, 2007 05:01 PM (69U0X)

18 I ask myself these kinds of questions all the time. For example, our son has autism and can't have a normal dental appointment, sitting in a chair like everyone else. His neurological system just won't let him do it. We tried for 9 years to do it the normal way because we knew insurance wouldn't pay for it. Finally, we just said we have to do it. We found a dentist who would do all the work while our son was under general anesthesia in the local children's hospital o.r. I'm ashamed I let him go for so long without having his teeth cared for. Dental insurance is paying for the dental part and medical insurance will only pay a fraction of the $8,000 hospital bill, though they paid 80% of the cost of anesthesia. He was in there for 1 hour. So who should pay? We believe our son's care is our responsibility but we're bummed out that he has autism, which drains every penny and more. My husband is going to sell his truck so we can pay the bill if we can't figure out a way to appeal it, which we've already done once to squeeze out $2,500 from our medical insurance. Anyway, I think the mom should have known she was doing something risky and those d.j.'s should never have tried something like that. And I think I should have taken care of my son's teeth a whole lot sooner.

Posted by: Joules at January 19, 2007 06:28 PM (u4CYb)

19 Say five "Hail Marys" and perform an act of contrition. Annie, the law should not need to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. What the Hell ever happened to taking responsibility for one's own decisions and acts? We are all sorry the lady is dead; she did a dumb thing and paid the price. Should the radio station now take care of her family for life? If you believe that it should, you are not a conservative, and our country will go to Hell in a handbasket. Too many stupid people out there to take care of...

Posted by: shelly at January 19, 2007 06:58 PM (SLFj+)

20 Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired. This is especially true when advertisers are allowed by lassie fare (one bowl of kibble) capitalist societies to withhold and distort information while distributing drugs and devices disguised as important instruments of status and personal fulfillment. While I, strangely enough, agree with you on the merits of this case. I wonder how you square your above view with the typical liberal rant on popular culture. Bill O'Reilly is being excoriated by your ideological brethren for his culture warrior stance. Right wingers have for years said that the popular media was coarsening our culture, hurting the nation, and leading directly to social pathologies. They were all tarred with the same brush by the left. called fools, prudes, prohibitionists, etc. Meanwhile the left made heroes out of truly sick people like Larry Flynt. So which is it? can advertisers, and Dj's really make people do bad things? Or do the images we see, and the songs we hear have little overall effect on us? What's it going to be, because it's got to be one or the other.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 20, 2007 09:41 AM (4bRzN)

21 Blu, California law addresses your concerns regarding the contestant's responsibility, if any. If the decedent had any fault, that is an issue for the jury to decide. In deliberations, the jury will have the opportunity to assign a percentage of fault to the decedent (comparative negligence), and any verdict will be reduced accordingly. (If I was on the jury, I'd say no. People are entitled to assume that a contest they enter will not result in their death, unless that risk is obvious, which in this case it was not.)

Posted by: annika at January 20, 2007 01:07 PM (1EshY)

22 Klye8, I understand what you are saying but I think you have made a false equation. To argue that the speech of a singer, pundit, and writer may be persuasive and cause some people to act badly is not an argument to suspend the first amendment. To incite to violence is already prohibited. To offer a prize for drinking 2 gallons of water does place a burden, as Annika says, on the sponsor since the expectation of safety is implicit and this is not the same a selling a recording of a song that talks about how sweet it is to end your life. If the CD had sharp poisoned edges then you might ban the recording but not for espousing a point of view even if that point of view is repugnant. We are a country that prides itself on the free, unencumbered exchanges of ideas. Bill OÂ’Reilly thinks he would be happy in a totalitarian society that would decide for him and others what may be said. He has no faith in the values of the country he lives in if he feels they are so tenuous that a song, or an essay, or a journalist can usurp them. I think the tobacco and alcohol industries should be, and have been, prohibited from advertising and are they are open to law suits because of the damage their products causes. If the danger had always been made clear then I, like you and Blu, would look harder at the userÂ’s responsibilities.

Posted by: strawman at January 20, 2007 03:23 PM (9ySL4)

23 Not a very satisfactory answer. In the first place I neverf said anything about censorship. Nor for that matter has O'Reilly(you can check it out, he has always been against censorship) But what we object to is the overwhelming embrace of crap culture by the mostly very left wing entertainment industry. and others on the left. Why is it you have people giving awards at every award show to criminals like Snoop Dogg and Little Kim, while reserving all their bile and hatred for people on the right. Or portraying in movies anyone normal and decent as though they were the bad guys. Then having the audacity to say, well its not hurting anyone. YOu lefties are so full of crap, and the sad thing is you don't even know it.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 21, 2007 06:16 AM (BWn7d)

24 Good question, Kyle. We make choices every moment of every day. If we are uncertain or ignorant about something, we can learn more about it before we make a decision. There's an aspect of this matter that can't be dealt with in court--the inner thoughts and feelings of the individuals involved. No matter what the court decides, everyone lives with the consequences of the woman's death for the rest of their lives. Human free will is a marvelous and terrible thing.

Posted by: Joules at January 21, 2007 12:09 PM (u4CYb)

25 kYLE8, The capitalist system of profit without regard for morals or ethics is always making choices. Many of those choices reward the moneymakers who are not necessarrily those that live the "best" life. Lil' Kim or Snoop, James Brown (felon, wifebeater) and so many others on the left and right, that put asses in the seats, sell the books, etc. COrporations will not, or rarely, act against their best interests. MAnytimes their best interests read making money, means ignoring the bad behavior of the talent. George Bush was a drunk and arrested for a DUI, Lil Kim committed perjury, Robert Downey a drug user, Rush Limbaugh a drug user, Mark Foley a sexual predator, Richard Nixon, Oliver North a felon and Negroponte his operator and Ronnie a nowing participant. Kyle there is no end to the crap culture as you so eloquently put it, in this country. The abuses of the population by careless manufacturers, false advertisers, scheming polititions, braying religious leaders, Cardinals protecting child molestors, GI's murdering those they were sent to liberate, animal lovers ruining scientific research, environmentalists burning down ski lodges and housing developments, congressmen taking money for influence, Bill Reilly lying about the facts of his life, and on and on. I don't think anybody has a monolopy nor is there a simple solution to it.

Posted by: strawman at January 21, 2007 01:44 PM (9ySL4)

26 Thanks for finding that out for me, Annika. You and I part ways on the risk being obvious: To me it was - that's why I was so fired up. What is obvious, however, is that most of my fellow posters - many of them bright and articulate - don't agree with me.

Posted by: blu at January 21, 2007 04:04 PM (IYDwv)

27 "If the danger had always been made clear then I, like you and Blu, would look harder at the userÂ’s responsibilities." Straw, Civilized society has known for a very long time -not for decades but for centuries - that smoking kills. The suits against the tobacco companies ought to be an embarrassment to intelligent, free people. But, we live in a country of sheep where everybody is a victim, so the suits will keep coming.

Posted by: blu at January 21, 2007 04:10 PM (IYDwv)

28 Blu, Centuries? You want to reconcider that my brother? Germ theory is only 150 years old. A humane society must recognized the strengths and weakness of its population and act accordingly to protect the strong from taking advantage. Or the majority from legislating minority needs and rights out of existance. Blu, do you still believe Dawin said surrvival of the fitest and that "social Darwinism" is a reasonable way to view the dynamics of modern society?

Posted by: strawman at January 22, 2007 10:21 AM (9ySL4)

29 No, I don't want to reconsider it. The references to the dangers of smoking is ubiquitous in very old literature. Even before humans could utilize the modern scientific method to "prove" that smoking killed, folks understood its dangers. Don't bother arguing the facts here, Straw, they are what they are. We've known for a very long time that smoking kills. Certainly, there is no excuse for anybody who lived after the late 19th century at the very least to claim he or she didn't know smoking was harmful. Amazingly enough, Straw, despite all the marketing that you claim should have made me smoke one cigarette after another and despite having friends all througout my life who have smoked, I have yet to take a single puff. Sorry to screw up you belief that humans are all naive, idiotic sheep that must be protected by Marx and the nanny state. And why are you discussing Spencer in this context? Social Darwinism has nothing to do with people choosing to do an activity that they know will harm them.

Posted by: blu at January 22, 2007 11:19 AM (IYDwv)

30 Blu, You continually miss my point. SOME, repeat, SOME people, some of your brothers and sisters need the assistance of a benevolent state to insure their wellbeing and to protect them from the cruel. That's all. Sounds very christian to me? No? This is not Socialism nor is it communism, just basic humanism. Longer than humans have had this belief you tout about tobacco, they have known about the variation in the capabilities of their neighbors accross the river or further back in the cave. Why do you try so hard to be hard? I'm glad you never smoked, aren't you special! I guess that means the 100's of billions spent on advertising is a waste. Who knew!

Posted by: strawman at January 22, 2007 02:30 PM (9ySL4)

31 hey did you know Bronco Bomber smokes cigarettes? If he won, that would make him the first smoking president since FDR, right?

Posted by: annika at January 23, 2007 11:49 AM (zAOEU)

32 Hmmm, a smoking Muslim.....not good for the pretty boy. Hillary's going to clobber him with that stuff.

Posted by: blu at January 23, 2007 06:52 PM (QrnvQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 17, 2007

Informal Survey

Posted by: annika at 12:21 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That really is "the evil of two lessors".

Posted by: Casca at January 17, 2007 01:06 PM (Y7t14)

2 I don't know much at all about Bronco Bomber, which why I'm puzzled by all the adulation he's getting from the media. I mean, he's been in the Senate for two frickin' years and he's Prez material? Dan Quayle must be spinning in his hammock.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at January 17, 2007 05:29 PM (XGbiv)

3 They were talking on NPR today about how internet savvy he (or his peeps) is.

Posted by: Joules at January 17, 2007 07:08 PM (u4CYb)

4 Who is "Bronco Bomber" I have never heard of the guy?

Posted by: Andy at January 18, 2007 09:42 AM (zGJwm)

5 Who is "Bronco Bomber" Rapidly say "Barack Obama" over and over again. Fucking tongue twisters....

Posted by: reagan80 at January 18, 2007 10:13 AM (wkyrW)

6 Spork, Dan QualeÂ’s problems had nothing to do with few or many years in the senate. He was just another typical, shallow, malleable, ignorant, good looking, candidate that the R's love to put up. god loving, quarterback types who will eschew science, book learning, and history. Sound familiar?

Posted by: strawman at January 18, 2007 10:57 AM (9ySL4)

7 Yes it sounds familiar, just as your screed always does. Now BEGONE FUCKTARD!

Posted by: Casca at January 18, 2007 12:01 PM (Y7t14)

8 OH OK I went for McCain then as the lesser of two evils besides America isn't ready for a black president yet. There are still large areas that are Republican normally that would not vote for a black President and I'd hate for the Dems to win by default. Same kind of thing with for the Dems with Hillary Clinton. To many folks who would vote Democrat wouldn't vote because she's a woman and who ever the Republican is would win by default. Come to think of it that would be good for my personal political leanings so hopefully Hillary Clinton runs as the Dems candidate. Maybe I'm wrong with this because I am frequently wrong about a lot of things but I don't think America is ready to vote a woman or a minority of any race into the White House. As a nation we still have to many built in prejudices for this to happen. Although many folks might say they aren't prejudiced against minority races or women, when the rubber meets the road I bet many of them would vote for the other side, or an independent should one run, simply because the candidate for their party was a minority race or a woman.

Posted by: Andy at January 18, 2007 12:26 PM (zGJwm)

9 So was Howard Dean, Joules. Andy, I think America is ready for a black president, and I think Bronco Bomber can do well either at the top or bottom of the ticket. Especially if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Romney or someone of his ilk. And here is the origin of "Bronco Bomber."

Posted by: annika at January 18, 2007 01:04 PM (zAOEU)

10 God, this is a tough one. I'd have to take McCain for his pro-life views, but it would be like swallowing a gallon of castor oil.

Posted by: Mark at January 18, 2007 03:39 PM (/c6lU)

11 How's it looking up there Strawman? Bet she done likes the pointy top of your dunce cap!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at January 18, 2007 10:22 PM (cOyko)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wednesday is Poetry Day: Shakespeare

My first exposure to Shakespeare was in the soundtrack to Hair when I was but a wee lad. The liner notes to one song said it was, "...absolutely beautiful. It was written by Shakespeare," if I recall correctly and at the time I thought it was just poetic license, that Misters Rado, Ragni, and MacDermot were comparing their work to Shakespeare. Boy, was I surprised when I found out they weren't kidding.

Of course, they farted around with the Bard's words, splitting Hamlet's speech and putting the last half first. Can't quite figure out why, but they did and it's fucked me up ever since. Whenever I see it performed, I think the speech is backwards.

I still think it's a beautiful speech, even if it does take place as Hamlet is deep into (faking) his madness. And while it technically may be prose, it reads as poetry.

What a Piece of Work is Man (Hamlet, Act II, Scene II)

...I have of lateÂ—but wherefore I know notÂ—lost all my
mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so
heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth,
seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the
air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical
roof fretted with golden fire,Â—why, it appears no other thing
to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a
piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in
action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the
beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what
is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman
neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

(On a related note, the British Library has put it's collection of Shakespeare on line...or, as the Library puts it, "On this site you will find the British LibraryÂ’s 93 copies of the 21 plays by William Shakespeare printed in quarto before the theatres were closed in 1642." Cool, eh? You can find them here.)

Posted by: Victor at 12:07 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

January 16, 2007

Bronco Bomber Endorsements

I find it interesting that so many MSM web stories celebrating Bronco Bomber's formation of an exploratory committee contain a hyperlink to his campaign website. It's interesting because a cursory check of old web stories about other candidates who have formed exploratory committees in the last few months (e.g. Giuliani, Vilsack, Romney, Tancredo) do not contain such thinly disguised endorsements.

But the media is not biased.

Posted by: annika at 04:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

24 Blogging

Last night we saw the first application this season of Annika's 24 maxim:

A hostile with key information is a hostile down.

When they revealed that this season's MacGuffin would be a suitcase bomb, I thought, "season two again." But this time, they exploded it inside the city, so does that mean we're in for a post-apocalyptic L.A. scenario? If so, I hope Snake Plisskin makes an appearance, what a team he and Jack would make. Snake & Jake, the two whispering heroes.

Posted by: annika at 10:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

January 11, 2007

Blech-am Is Coming To America

Resist the Beckham hype!

Soccer is like communism. All true Americans shun and despise it. Now, MLS has managed to pluck has-been soccer megastar David Beckham in their latest attempt to force feed soccer to US sports fans.

Well let me be the first to say I won't stand for it. Americans gave the world baseball, football and basketball, and this is how the rest of the world repays us? With eurotrash David and Victoria Beckham?

Just say no to the hype that is sure to surround Beckham's Coming to America tour. I'm already feeling nauseated by the inevitable oh-so-serious Nike ads featuring Beckham bicycle kicking a soccer ball at supersonic speed through the back of a net fifty miles away Â— in grainy black and white with a techno soundtrack. Puleeeze, spare me. Soccer will always remain just notch between chess and tetherball on the excitometer, no matter how many spice girls you dress it up with.

Just say no to the Beckham hype!

Soccerus est communismus!

Posted by: annika at 02:51 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well said, as always Annika.

Posted by: Roach at January 11, 2007 03:32 PM (1BjlW)

2 How is a MLS franchise, with no national TV market going to pay that kind of salary? I know its big in LA and here in Houston, anywhere the illegals hold sway, but they don't even charge that much for games, and never sell out. I don't understand the economics of it.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 11, 2007 03:40 PM (uSj2m)

3 We gave the world baseball? Based on the British game of rounders. Football, based on the British game of Rugby and basketball, that's a game played by English school girls. The only game worth watching in the US is hockey and we got that from the Canadians.

Posted by: Nicksta at January 11, 2007 05:11 PM (TpGfG)

4 I'm in total agreement. I've always been an Emma Bunton fan.

Posted by: Casca at January 11, 2007 06:36 PM (2gORp)

5 The following two words explains soccer in a nutshell: Weak sport!

Posted by: joe at January 11, 2007 08:39 PM (Tnli8)

6 The difference between football and soccer is largely the difference between believing that one can achieve a goal through a plan, and believing that progress is a myth, wherein goal-achievement occurs stochastically, produced by the blind, haphazard interaction of forces and particles. Although I do enjoy soccer, I'm forced to admit that it would be much more entertaining if played with live grenades. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 12, 2007 06:38 AM (TDwc6)

7 Having lived in Europe for seven years, I have to admit to being a fan of soccer, as well as playing and coaching. However, I stand firmly in the anti-beckham camp. There is no amount of justification for the salary given to a player who has passed his prime playing in a country that doesn't, as a whole, enjoy the sport.

Posted by: Frank at January 12, 2007 08:53 AM (YHZAl)

8 > Soccer is like communism. All true Americans shun and despise it. I like your dry humour, though sometimes people like to get points across that way. I don't watch much soccer, but then again I no longer watch much sports on TV (don't watch much TV at that). So while I used to be a huge Redskins fan, I no have no sports idols or real favorites. I understand those who do, however, and it can be fun and exciting. I do coach my daughters' soccer teams and it's a great way for them to get their exercise and foster team thinking. And they're as all-american as the next kid.

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 09:29 AM (h7Ciu)

9 Annika, The only thing I look fwd to, now that becks will be playing in a 80% empty American stadiums, is the crowd chanting "Posh won't take it in the ass". It will be interesting to see what those dolts at ESPN say when the chant starts. Posh twisting uncomfortable in her chair whilst being interviewed by a lad mag said "no she didn't" when asked if she let Becks put it in her heinie. English soccer fans taunt Becks at games with this tidbit.

Posted by: strawman at January 12, 2007 10:32 AM (9ySL4)

10 Posh won't do Greek? That f***** iceberg!

Posted by: elmondohummus at January 12, 2007 12:29 PM (J+r3D)

11 Hmmmmmm When will the U.S. come to realize that the world loves soccer and we should too. Why don't we join with the rest of the World Community? Let's look at the variety of sports available in other countries...... EnglandÂ…Â…Soccer GermanyÂ…Â…Soccer FranceÂ…Â….Soccer EgyptÂ…Â…Â….Soccer ItalyÂ…Â…Â….Soccer IrelandÂ…Â….Soccer BrazilÂ…Â…Â…Soccer ArgentinaÂ….Soccer Iran.....Soccer China.....Soccer USA.......NFL Football, American League Baseball, National League Baseball, The National Basketball League, National Hockey league, NCAA College Football, NCAA College Basketball, WTA, PGA, and NASCARÂ…Â…. Why we haven't come to our senses and accepted soccer is curious indeed...... Oh I forgot......WNBA, Boxing, Professional bowling, bull riding, Monster Trucks, Motocross,Curling............

Posted by: stiknstein at January 12, 2007 03:10 PM (4djxo)

12 To be fair stick, England has cricket and rugby, Spain has bullfighting. The French have smoking. and all of the mideastern nations have dodging grenades and shooting guns into the air.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 12, 2007 03:34 PM (Wzozk)

13 Stiknstein, Britain also televises billiards. And of course, the Scots invented golf. So they got that going for them, which is nice. And Aussie rules football is pretty hardcore. But the Aussies are about the closest thing to Americans there is in the world. Strawman, thanks for the info, I can't wait for his first game now. Will, you totally crack me up. If I had to imagine your voice, I think you would sound just like Laurence Harvey. btw, I loved to play soccer when I was a kid. All that running around is good exercise too. And in defense of soccer as a participant sport, it's pretty democratic. Anybody can play and skill level doesn't mean as much as in other sports for kids.

Posted by: annika at January 12, 2007 04:00 PM (1EshY)

14 Annika.... Course I had to leave Aussies off the list because they do play (real) football without pads.....and they're one of the few people that have the cajones not to take any crap from the Imams ....SCOOOOOOORRRRRRRR.......

Posted by: stiknstein at January 12, 2007 05:33 PM (4djxo)

15 >I think you would sound just like Laurence Harvey. No I sound like Laurence Olivier? While not Lithuanian, perhaps more like Jimmy Stewart in "Harvey", so Annika's anapestic shoe fits. Let's then hope neither daughter becomes a bounty hunter...

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 06:05 PM (h7Ciu)

16 Posh twisting uncomfortable in her chair whilst being interviewed by a lad mag said "no she didn't" when asked if she let Becks put it in her heinie Are you kidding? She'll never get pregnant unless he misses and gets it in the wrong hole! Beckham congratulates himself after a "score"!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at January 12, 2007 06:57 PM (cOyko)

17 Hey RR, You neve said you lived in Queens? Who held the camera for you?

Posted by: strawman at January 13, 2007 10:24 AM (9ySL4)

18 Where does all this animus for soccer come from? It's a great game. Try playing it for more than 10 minutes and see if you're not coughing up both lungs. Plus, Italy won World Cup #4 last summer. And we did it without Beckham!

Posted by: Mark at January 14, 2007 12:42 AM (33r5+)

19 Mark, I could say that the team from Bumfuck, Egypt won. Who the hell would know? The point is that it is a pointless sport that doesn't appeal to our culture. So, fuck it.

Posted by: Casca at January 14, 2007 01:36 AM (2gORp)

20 Until they figure out how to insert commercials into a soccer match with the frequency and intensity of NFL football, there is little chance that soccer will ever make the bucks that football, basketball and baseball pull in. They've tried running commercials on the bottom, in split screens, etc. and none of it works. They still sell big numbers of tickets in LA where the Latino and Euro crowds show up on game day to buy seats, but they are lower income folks, by and large, and come five or six to a car, lowering income from parking, and there are so few breaks that they sell very little food and beer, etc. There are no scalpers, and the seats that they do pre-sell are sold in bodegas and local stores, only. Beats me where the money to pay Spice Boy is coming from, probably just Phil Anshutz trying to bolster sales, as he owns several teams. Dunno about you guys, but soccer puts me to sleep, and I try to only watch World Championship or Olympic games stuff, if at all. Women's soccer is also a bore, with the sole exception of the game where they won the Cup. I'd rather watch corn grow in Iowa.

Posted by: shelly at January 15, 2007 08:49 AM (SLFj+)

21 I was confused about the economics, also, until I heard that most of the money comes from endorsement rights (I believe from existing contracts). The Galaxy will only have to lay out a few million at most. The only quibble that I have with soccer is when person A commits a foul on person B and person B goes into immediate death spasms. Other than that, it's a game refreshingly void of TV timeouts. I forgot about the violence. Not good either, although the idea of some soccer fans beating up some Raiders fans seems somewhat pleasing.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at January 15, 2007 10:19 AM (yVSiH)

22 Casca, you're free to dislike it, but it's not any more "pointless" than other sports. Hockey: put puck in net. Basketball: throw ball into circular ring. Football: get ball past goal line. Baseball: hit ball and circle bases. Soccer: kick ball in net.

Posted by: Mark at January 15, 2007 02:55 PM (iY86I)

23 You are a very foolish man. WTF is going on around here? Hellooooo, are you lost in the mountains, or on a sexcapade? I need some posts, and I need them now.

Posted by: Casca at January 15, 2007 10:13 PM (2gORp)

24 Nobody even knows who they are in this country. They tried to clear out a store in Beverly Hills to allow them to "shop" by themselves, but the owner refused, saying that they may be stars across the pond, but here they are nothing.

Posted by: SH at January 16, 2007 11:07 AM (tt+bJ)

25 Good for the shop owner! I think the Beckhams will find that they're little fish in a big pond o'celebrities here in the U.S.

Posted by: Joules at January 16, 2007 11:45 AM (u4CYb)

26 David Beckham playing for the Galaxy won't increase my interest in MLS.

Posted by: part america at January 29, 2007 03:26 AM (GY5SM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 10, 2007

The "Surge" Speech

The President has now outlined his new approach for Iraq. Do I think it will work? Really, who cares what I think? I don't care what anybody else thinks. The time for punditry has long passed. This is the time for results. I sense that the President finally understands this.

As I've said before, arguing about whether we should set a timetable for withdrawal is stupid. We already have one, and the deadline is January 20th, 2009. No amount of wishful thinking by war hawks can change the fact that unless there is significant and obvious improvement in Iraq, and soon, the next president of the United States will be elected on a platform of withdrawal.

Therefore, we who long for success should know that this is our last chance to succeed. We have less than two years. Those who oppose us know that this is the endgame for Iraq too. Our foreign enemies will do everything they can to embarrass U.S. forces by creating atrocities or inventing them wherever possible. Our domestic enemies will then do all they can to portray these atrocities as evidence of the failure, futility and immorality of our purpose.

Whether we succeed or not depends very little on what you or I say here at home, given those facts. Our men and women at arms will accomplish everything that is asked of them, as they always have. The question is whether the President and his generals will have the guts to keep fighting when the inevitable criticism hits fever pitch. Based on past experience, I need convincing.

This country is anti-war; our domestic enemies have already won that battle (with the unwitting help, I might add, of Mr. Rumsfeld and the commander-in-chief himself). The President's speech tonight will not magically transform the public's fatigue any more than it can change the Washington press corps into a group of people who love their country. If success is possible at this late hour, Mr. Bush will have to do it without the support of Congress, the media, or the majority of the American people.

But as President Bush explained less than half an hour ago, failure in Iraq would be a disaster. And therefore, I hope he understands above all that now is the time for results.

Technorati: iraq, bush, bush+speech

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, what are the majority of the American people thinking? I want the new i-Phone? We can't alter the course of a country without making sure we help them get on their feet to some degree before we leave.

Posted by: Joules at January 10, 2007 08:48 PM (u4CYb)

2 I'm weary of defeatist sentiments. Hopefully Petraeus is Bush's Grant. A man with the strength to do what needs to be done. Ultimately, there is no way to walk away from this war. The cowards stayed home from Vietnam, and bullied the people into turning their backs on the sacrifice and victory of the valiant. That won't work this time. The war will find them here if they accomplish the same thing in Iraq.

Posted by: Casca at January 10, 2007 09:59 PM (2gORp)

3 Casca hit the nail right on the head with that one. This is unlike most any war we've fought in the last century. If we don't win this war, we can't just bring everyone home and say "Oh well, at least we tried." The war will follow us here, and I would much rather we fight in their streets than ours.

Posted by: Frank at January 11, 2007 08:34 AM (YHZAl)

4 I agree that words are fairly meaningless now, but I'd still like for the President cogently to define the enemy (Islamo-fascism); to re-emphasize our strategic, long-term goals in the region. And then make the obvious link between the two. The President has spent more time the past few years peddling PC nonsense about the "religion of peace" and worrying about collateral damage than he has about making a strong argument for our presence in Iraq. This adminstration and more specifically this President has refused to speak directly and honestly to the American people about the enemy and why Iraq is so strategic in winning the GWOT. Reagan he ain't. The war of ideas is every bit as important as the war on the ground. We, the good guys, are losing both. And somebody tell me again why Sadr is still alive...

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 11:03 AM (j8oa6)

5 From President Bush, I smell a hint of desperation, and of urgency. Good. It has been missing. Only desperation and urgency moved President Bush to put Iran and Syria on notice: we will take military action against you. Finally! President Bush had not been serious enough to take that necessary step. Bush to Ahmanutjob: "You and I have unfinished business!"

Posted by: gcotharn at January 11, 2007 12:45 PM (xq9zD)

6 "The war of ideas is every bit as important as the war on the ground. We, the good guys, are losing both." Exactly HOW are we losing the war on the ground? It's unconventional warfare. The more powerful side only loses when it quits.

Posted by: Casca at January 11, 2007 06:48 PM (2gORp)

7 You think we are winning? You think Iraq is stable? You think having Sadr running around doing what he likes when he likes to do it, is winning? You think we are winning when the President admits that Syria and Iran are sending in bodies and weapons? Delusion is not a strategy. Neither is a PC-run war. I hope the President's "surge" begins to address the current reality. As you well know, I'm a Bush supporter and a supporter of the war. That, however, does not preclude me from exercising critical thinking. I don't think we've lost. But, we have a very short window to turn things around and start winning the both the physical and propoganda war. The gloves need to come off or we will lose. Winning for the other side just means keeping the chaos going. Winning for us means a stable Iraq that is a dependable ally and is not run by Muslim fanatics. Winning for us is a much more difficult task.

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 07:20 PM (IYDwv)

8 p.s. there wouldn't have been a speech last night if we were winning.

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 07:31 PM (IYDwv)

9 Nah, there would have been more speeches were we winning. Yet, I hesitate to say we are losing. It's like playing a very long invloved game of Monopoly. Sometimes you are up, other times down. I like to play Monopoly, but, I actually hide my properties and money under the board, so my foe doesn't know my hand.

Posted by: Jenn at January 11, 2007 08:31 PM (d3Ou4)

10 Jenn, I hope that both you and Casca are right, and I am wrong. In the meantime, let's pray the President's new plan has a positive impact both in Iraq and America. As Annika said above, our enemies - the insurgents and the American Left - both want America to fail in Iraq and so they will be working OT in pursuit of that goal. As a side note, I believe there are two kinds of people: those who enjoy Monopoly and those who despise it.

Posted by: blu at January 12, 2007 12:15 AM (IYDwv)

11 > This country is anti-war; our domestic enemies have already won that battle (with the unwitting help, I might add, of Mr. Rumsfeld and the commander-in-chief himself). 1. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz are the main reason this country is anti-war. They bumbled the intelligence to lie their way into a strategy to secure oil resources, the bumbled the troop levels, they bumbled the plan for the aftermath, Bremer made numerous bumbles, ammo depots were not secured or demolished, and it goes on and on. 2. Domestic enemies? We are the American people, though there is much partisan hate that creates a chasm of disunity. You can't blame people for saying, "Wait, what are we really getting ourselves into?", or "the adminstration is making serious errors in decision-making". Such people are not enemies, but patriots. Yes, patriots. I'm all for giving a leader the ability to threaten engagement if a threat to our nation or world stability must be confronted. I utterly despise being lied to about the reasons for unleashing the dogs of war, especially when the objectives of keeping WMD out of the hands of madmen are completely and incompetently bumbled, as in the case of North Korea and perhaps soon to be Iran. If you mean domestic enemies as those who are tired of the policies of the arch-conservative wing of the Republican party, then that is well over 50% of the American people. While blu will likely disagree with much of the above, I happen to agree with his comments above. Casca> "Exactly HOW are we losing the war on the ground? It's unconventional warfare. The more powerful side only loses when it quits." There were other uncoventional wars such as Vietnam and the American Revolution, to name two, where the superior force was routed because of unconventional tactics. This is a complex subject, so a few paragraphs in a comment won't really capture the essence of the many nuances.

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 09:49 AM (h7Ciu)

12 Well Blu, I like monopoly but rarely find the time to play. It helped me to clarify the dilemmas of wealth and moral ambiguity of capitalism at an early stage of my life. That said I don't like the war in Iraq, nor am I an enemy of the US. That kind of thinking is, as you know, really shallow and primarily the retort of those whose real arguments and policies have failed. Casca thinks that because he doesn't see people clambering aboard helo's from the embassy roof we are not beaten. Beaten we may not be but winning we certainly are not. Sure, in each fire fight and house to house we are not overwhelmed, pushed back or do we suffer losses greater than our enemy. If you are living in a box with tinfoil lining your hat, that may look like winning but this attempt to subdue a country, install a government that has little meaning to most of the population and has terrible meaning to a violent minority will require more than successful house to house searches and winning a fire-fight whenever the enemy is too stupid to avoid it. Winning would be a political decision on the part of the Iraqi population to embrace the heel of America's boot and to call it freedom. You can kill millions and that won't happen. The GWOT is not being fought in Iraq. Iraq is just another thinly disguised American attempt at projecting influence in the service of maintaining access to raw materials and markets exchanging the wholesale destruction of non-American lives and societies to ensure America's continued gluttonous consumption of the worldÂ’s resources and maintaining our "quality of life". We have no humanitarian interest in Dafur because acting there cannot further Capitalism's goals. Saving 100,000 lives in Africa returns no gain to the US economy nor advances our influence in matters that are truly important to us. The transparency of this equation to the rest of the world is the essence of why America is despised. ItÂ’s neither our freedom, nor our quality of life (which is obviously terrific) it is our hypocritical plundering. Our schoolyard bully approach to our clear military might yet our clear weakness when we must confront the nature of our core values. I thought it was very telling yesterday when Condiliar said it would be coming to them as the "supplicant" should we seek to negotiate with and possibly enjoin the governments of Syria, Jordan etc. to help with stabilizing Iraq. Powerful people or nations do worry about such things if they believe in their strength and the value of their goals unless, of course, if their stated goal is a lie and their strength in doubt.

Posted by: strawman at January 12, 2007 10:11 AM (9ySL4)

13 Ironic, Straw, that you like Monopoly, while I have always freakin' hated it. (Not because I don't love capitalism. More because I have a very hard time sitting still. Monopoly is not a game for those lacking patience or for the restless.)

Posted by: blu at January 12, 2007 12:18 PM (IYDwv)

14 Blu, Truth be told I have not sat at a Monoply board since I was 14 or so and have not given the idea of playing a thought since then. It made for an opening sentence that i liked.

Posted by: strawman at January 12, 2007 12:48 PM (9ySL4)

15 Ahhh....we all like a good lead in.....

Posted by: blu at January 12, 2007 03:00 PM (IYDwv)

16 I think a monopoly game with all you guys would be really fun. Will, I do think that most Americans who today identify themselves as anti-war have a real hard time understanding why we invaded a country that did not attack us. I do not fault them for that point of view, I totally understand it, and I do not consider such people "domestic enemies," as among their number I count many friends and family members. By "domestic enemies" I mean people who are actively working to aid the enemy and to bring about the defeat of United States forces in Iraq and elsewhere. Many of the people I mean are doing so knowingly, and many are doing so unwittingly, but I consider them enemies either way. But in no way do I mean to imply that anyone who questions the Iraq War is a "domestic enemy." I am sorry I did not make that distinction clear in the post.

Posted by: annika at January 12, 2007 04:12 PM (1EshY)

17 Annika, perhaps I went a tad overboard, though your distinction helps. Could you identify by name who you think some of our domestic enemies are?

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 06:25 PM (h7Ciu)

18 I welcome the opportunity to have a reasoned discourse with reagan80. 1. They bumbled the intelligence...." Of course, but so did everyone else outside of and before the Bush administration. Anybody remember Operation Desert Fox? The pre-war intel failures also make the conservative/libertarian case that Big Gov't is prone to Murphy's Law. As someone already pointed out in another thread, that is why we're fucked if we ever have to rely on the bureaucrats to stop climate change or blow up giant asteroids before impacting on earth. "Bumbled" was too kind a word; "distorted" would have been better. The initial CIA findings were that Iraq did not have a WMD capability. Cheney/Rumsfeld didn't think that was sufficient enough, so they pressured Tennant by threatening to create a foreign intelligence unit in DoD, and by good old arm-twisting. It was win-win for them; when the intel proved grossly wrong, they would be able to boot Tennant and put in someone of their own choosing. Would you have national intel run by multi-national corporations? States? Don't forget that it was the conservatives who royally screwed this one up. 2. "....to lie their way into a strategy to secure oil resources," I'd love to see Will prove this accusation. I freely admit that this is more an opinion formed from my understanding of global oil resources and the nature of Cheney's influence. Blu criticizes me for not being opinionated, so you two need to get together to determine a happy medium. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was indeed a "moderate" or "independent", but it seems that he's really just some poseur trying to re-package his Leftism into something "hip". This is not simply a "lefty" opinion. There are many moderates and conservatives who also are concerned about our current oil consumption levels and recognize the need to change. For a start, look at the names on these documents (e.g., Bates, no less); http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/ESLC_Oil_Report.pdf http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/oil_shock_report_master.pdf Even if that were true, I'd rather it be us controlling oil supplies than China. "China and the United States are the largest users and competitors for the world's rapidly diminishing oil reserves. Going forward, the US and ChinaÂ’s projected requirements will consume 60%-70% of the worldÂ’s production. This demand cannot be met and one country will experience brown outs, gasoline shortages, factory shutdowns as a result of having a lack of energy." Strawman might consider our national interest to be an obsolete pursuit, but I'm sure he's in the minority if the country had to choose between self-destruction or conducting imperialism to prevent it. http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/Briefing-OilDependence.pdf I agree that there is the potential for a serious oil supply disruptions, though I take another view on what the need truly is, and agree in large part with the solutions in the first link a couple of paragraphs above. I encourage your comments on those documents. 3. "the bumbled the troop levels," That's somewhat true, but it isn't entirely Bush Jr.'s fault or even under his control(besides the draft). I completely understand your rationale about fighting multiple wars. Hence, we shouldn't have gone in at that time. Period. I don't see how you can escape this reality. Two years ago, perhaps, but not now. 4."they bumbled the plan for the aftermath" That's true, but it probably wouldn't have mattered even if they hadn't. They didn't understand the situation during planning, nor did they have a clue what was going on shortly thereafter. The aftermath plan was put on the backburner, because it was perceived as unimportant by Rumsfeld. Bremer was using an inexperienced staff of young ideologues who were political appointments rotated through on 3 month shifts, and also grossly undermanned. This discussion alone could take up an entire book. I suggest you read "Fiasco" for a perspective that you probably haven't considered before. If nothing else, talk to a senior military acquaintance of yours and ask their take on the matter. Be prepared to listen. 5. "I utterly despise being lied to about the reasons for unleashing the dogs of war" They did not lie. They were just gravely mistaken. Perhaps you even disagree with Powell, who regrets his role in the matter, especially the sexing up of the intel. His fault was being a good soldier, and he was always outnumbered to begin with. Note that he is not shy now about speaking his own mind. 6. "especially when the objectives of keeping WMD out of the hands of madmen are completely and incompetently bumbled" You might be right, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the Axis of Evil members had to go down. Perhaps at some point, but the timing was horribly wrong. We were in Afghanistan at the time, and negotiating with NK to stop their nuclear weapons program. But someone wanted to be a war president, egged on no doubt by the VP. After all, if Bush secured future energy supplies, and conservatives got to push their agenda through under the fog of war, they would come out smelling like roses. The odor is something else entirely now. our Arab pseudo-allies in the region will most likely back away from their own nuclear development programs since they won't have to worry about the "Persian bomb" anymore. That completely ignores the situation in Iran, the only other country with the resources to undertake such a venture.

Posted by: will at January 13, 2007 04:30 AM (h7Ciu)

19 "The initial CIA findings were that Iraq did not have a WMD capability." Really? Then, WTF was Operation Desert Fox about? The intelligence community thought Iraq had enough WMD capabilities to justify bombing them in '98. From then on, there were no UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until late 2002. You're telling me that the CIA conclusively knew that there was no way in hell that Saddam was acquiring WMD's, despite a 4-year absence of inspectors in the country? Riiight. Could you direct me to the store that sold them their time machines and crystal balls? k thx The "consensus", at the time, on pre-war intelligence could have been just as wrong as it was in the final years of the Cold War. IIRC, the CIA was caught by surprise when the Wall came down and the USSR collapsed. At the time, they actually thought the Soviets had a sustainable economic system matching our own. "Would you have national intel run by multi-national corporations? States? Don't forget that it was the conservatives who royally screwed this one up." No, I was just making another one of my obligatory arguments for limited gov't. Bush expanded the size of government more than the last 3 administrations combined. If you haven't noticed already, conservatism in the current Republican Party is vestigial, at best. If we're going to have Big Gov't, I'd rather see less of it here, and more of it going overseas to plague our enemies. "Hence, we shouldn't have gone in at that time. Period." No, we should've gone in, but not to conduct democratic nation-building. We had enough troops to destroy the Iraqi military, but we needed the Iraqi army intact. If we had ensured the Sunni Arabs that one of their own would succeed Saddam and maintain the status quo, the post-war transition would've proceeded more smoothly and allowed us a graceful exit. Disbanding the Iraqi army and attempting to democratize a bunch of tribal primitives was the real blunder. We should've been waging the war as a punitive expedition to put the Iranians and Syrians on notice that we wouldn't put up with their shit anymore. Instead, it was turned into a liberal social engineering program that ended up emboldening them. "I don't see how you can escape this reality." Try renting the Matrix trilogy sometime. "I suggest you read "Fiasco" for a perspective that you probably haven't considered before." That won't be necessary. I was already aware of those details from my other sources. I don't need some closet Leftist telling me how to attain enlightenment. "Perhaps you even disagree with Powell," Where's the quote that has Powell stating the administration LIED to, or DECEIVED everybody? It better have him using a synonymous term that denotes malicious intent on the part of the administration, or I call BS. "Perhaps at some point, but the timing was horribly wrong." When would have been a good time, then? After an extra year of weapon inspections? If they would've waited that long, the administration would've had a grand total of 9 months to conduct the war, assuming there was an electoral defeat in '04. The administration didn't want to take any chances that their potential peacenik successors wouldn't finish the war properly, so they went for a head start. If we would've let sleeping dogs lie, the sanctions would've eventually been lifted after Bush was gone. Then, if not to deter us, Saddam would've definitely entered the nuclear arms race against Iran. "That completely ignores the situation in Iran, the only other country with the resources to undertake such a venture." Sorry for not being clearer: [With them(Iran) out of the way, our Arab pseudo-allies in the region will most likely back away from their own nuclear development programs since they won't have to worry about the "Persian bomb" anymore.] Iran isn't an Arab country. It's population is mostly Persian. Arabs don't like Persians. It's kind of like how Sunni Arabs don't like Sunni Kurds in Iraq, or how Arab Muslims don't take very kindly to black Muslims in Darfur. Islam resembles an Arab supremacist cult movement. Hence, a potential nuclear arms race is brewing in the Middle East. Religion of Peace, my ass.

Posted by: reagan80 at January 13, 2007 07:46 PM (wkyrW)

20 en, WTF was Operation Desert Fox about? Continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors. We know now that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq at that time. No, I was just making another one of my obligatory arguments for limited gov't. Then who do you believe should be acquiring and analysing intelligence of national strategic importance? Try renting the Matrix trilogy sometime. I don't get my reality from Hollywood science fiction. No, we should've gone in, but not to conduct democratic nation-building. We had enough troops to destroy the Iraqi military, but we needed the Iraqi army intact. If we had ensured the Sunni Arabs that one of their own would succeed Saddam and maintain the status quo, the post-war transition would've proceeded more smoothly and allowed us a graceful exit. There are any number of woulda-coulda-shoulda monday morning quarterbacking scenarios. Suffice to say, the spreading of democracy was a post factum justification. If a Sunni was put in charge through strong arm tactics, the Kurds would have simply flipped us off and the Shiites would have been push fully into the Iranian fold. rebeling in an outcome that could easily have been worst than what we are in now. When would have been a good time, then? After we had Afghanistan under control and NK dropping their bomb strategy. Although it is unclear whether the CINC could have pulled both of those off.

Posted by: will at January 15, 2007 01:22 PM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Scorpion Poetry

The Rattlesnake and Scorpion
by Ruth Yoshiko Okimoto
Said the Scorpion to the Rattlesnake,
"What manner of commotion is happening here?
The sawing of lumber and pounding of nails,
      black tarpaper falls and covers my trail.
Tall fence posts pierce deep into the ground
      securing chainlink fences and barbed wire from town."
Said the Rattlesnake to the Scorpion,
"Indeed, huge pipes obstruct and crisscross my path,
      and loud swishing noises disturb my sleep.
Why, I went foraging for food and found
      my favorite hunting ground vanished today
      and more will dwindle, I've heard them say."
Said the Scorpion to the Rattlesnake,
"And worse even yet, small human fingers foolishly grab
      my sisters, brothers, cousins, and all,
      and drown them in jars filled with alcohol."
"How foolish, indeed," replied the Rattlesnake,
      "Don't they know of your sting, my venomous bite?"
Said the Scorpion to the Rattlesnake,
"What kind of human would dare intrude into our sacred place?
We've lived on this land for centuries, I'm told,
      so, why do they come here to ravage and destroy?
We've lived in peace, both you and I,
      with no intent to hurt or annoy."
Said the Rattlesnake to the Scorpion,
"Some humans, I'm told, regard those who differ in skin
      or thought with what they call 'justifiable' hate."
"As you know," continued the Rattlesnake,
      "humans are the most dangerous animal of all;
      they kill with lethal weapons ten feet tall."
Asked the Scorpion of the Rattlesnake,
"So what do you think they are building here,
      in the midst of our desert home?"
Answered the Rattlesnake with a somber voice,
"It's something menacing, and I fear
      portend of dangers yet unclear."

[This poem was written in 1942, while Okimoto was interned at Poston Relocation Center, Arizona.]

Posted by: annika at 03:42 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Followup from yesterday, where the administration is admitting greenhouse gas warming; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html?sub=AR "People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change." The center said there are indications that the rate at which global temperatures are rising is speeding up. ------------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/science/10climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Â“A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,Â” the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El NiÃ±o and the human influence were not known. A link between greenhouse gases and climate change was also made in a December news conference by Dirk Kempthorne, the secretary of the interior, as that agency proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Still, the climate agencyÂ’s shift in language came as a surprise to several public affairs officials there. They said they had become accustomed in recent years to having any mention of a link between climate trends and human activities played down or trimmed when drafts of documents went to the Commerce Department and the White House for approval. James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the release reflected longstanding views within the administration. Â“ItÂ’s helpful for them to describe what is a question in many peopleÂ’s minds Â— what is the human factor, what is the El NiÃ±o factor,Â” Mr. Connaughton said of the NOAA release. Â“From our perspective, what was in the press release was a direct reflection of what the president and folks in his administration have been saying for some time.Â” Mr. Bush has made two speeches on climate. He first expressly accepted that humans were contributing to global warming in a news conference in Denmark in July 2005 on the way to an economic summit in Scotland, saying, Â“Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.Â” But the governmentÂ’s scientific bureaucracy, where public affairs officials and scientists as recently as last year complained that findings pointing to climate dangers were being suppressed, has taken time to catch up. Â“ThereÂ’s been some sensitivity to the fact that some people have complained that NOAA and other parts of the government havenÂ’t been as open as they would like them to have been on this,Â” said Jay Lawrimore, a climatologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., where the temperature trends are compiled. Â“Now NOAA is making an effort to be clearer on some of the influences.Â” Mr. Lawrimore said there was no way to account for the trends, be they the melting of Arctic sea ice or the warming of winters, without including an influence from heat-trapping gases. Â“Year after year as we continue to see warmer temperatures,Â” he said, Â“there are more and more converts convinced that itÂ’s not just natural variability and not just something thatÂ’s going to return back to temperatures we saw 40 or 50 years ago Â— that in fact we are doing something to the climate.Â”

Posted by: will at January 10, 2007 07:19 PM (h7Ciu)

2 Will, that comment belongs under the GW post.

Posted by: annika at January 10, 2007 08:02 PM (1EshY)

3 Ok, it's copied over, might as well clear these three out.

Posted by: will at January 10, 2007 08:54 PM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Scorpions On A Plane

In case you hadn't heard this story:

Sullivan, a 46-year-old builder from Stowe, was aboard the United Airlines flight on the second leg of his trip home from San Francisco, where he and his wife Helena had been visiting their sons. He awoke from a nap shortly before landing and noticed something strange.
"My right leg felt like it was asleep, but that was isolated to one spot, and it felt like it was being jabbed with a sharp piece of plastic or something."
The second sting came after the plane had landed and the Sullivans were waiting for their bags at the luggage carousel. Sullivan rolled up his cuff to investigate, and the scorpion fell out.
"It felt like a shock, a tingly thing. Someone screamed, 'It's a scorpion,'" Sullivan recalled. Another passenger stepped on the two-inch arachnid, and someone suggested Sullivan seek medical help.
He scooped up the scorpion and headed to the hospital in Burlington. His wife stopped at the United counter and was told the plane they were on had flown from Houston to Chicago. The Sullivans surmised the scorpion boarded in Texas.
"The airlines tell you can't bring water or shampoo on a plane," Helena Sullivan said. But the scorpion did make it aboard, she said.

That's right, scorpions on a muhfukkin plane!

In other Samuel L. Jackson related news, check out this awesome t-shirt.

t-shirt recommendation via Dawn.

Posted by: annika at 12:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

January 09, 2007

Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 69

Posted by: annika at 10:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

The Big Stink

The "big stink" yesterday in New York reminds me of a go-around I had with a snotty PG&E representative a few years ago. I had just moved into a new apartment.

Me: "Yes, I'm calling to report a gas leak."

PG&E rep: "How do you know there's a gas leak?"

Me: "I can smell it."

PG&E rep: "Okay, what do you smell?"

Me: "Gas."

PG&E rep: "Describe the smell for me."

Me: "It smells like gas. Are you going to send someone out or not?"

PG&E rep: "I need to first verify if there's a problem."

Me: "There is. I have a gas leak."

PG&E rep: "Does it smell like rotten eggs?"

Me: "I... I've never smelled rotten eggs. I don't know. It smells like gas."

PG&E rep: "Natural gas is odorless."

Me: "But I've smelled gas before and this is what it smells like."

PG&E rep: "You can't smell natural gas. It's odorless."

Me: "But I smell gas."

PG&E rep: "For safety reasons, we put a chemical in the gas in order to make it detectable."

Me: "Alright, then I smell the chemical you put in the gas in order to make it detectable."

PG&E rep: "Okay, does it smell like rotten eggs?"

Me: "Look, I have no idea what a rotten egg smells like. I don't know what kind of home you grew up in, but in my family we didn't keep a lot of rotten eggs around the house."

PG&E rep: "I'm sorry ma'am, but we get a lot of false alarms and I can't send anyone over to your house unless I can verify whether there's a gas leak."

Me: "Well, how else would I know I have a gas leak other than by smelling gas? What is it about 'I smell gas' that you don't understand..."

This went on for a few minutes longer and finally the a-hole relented and sent a repairman out. Turns out that the guy next door had died and his stove was leaking gas like crazy. In all honesty, I might have been smelling gas odor mixed with dead guy. But I suppose if I had said that, my call would have been transferred to the coroner's office instead.

Posted by: annika at 03:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I smell dead people.

Posted by: Casca at January 09, 2007 03:35 PM (2gORp)

2 ^^LMAO

Posted by: reagan80 at January 09, 2007 04:49 PM (wkyrW)

3 Wait, wait, wait... the service rep didn't take a report of a possible gas leak seriously?? Holy shit, that guy needed to be fired. I hope you're in a different city and don't have to deal with that company anymore. Few years ago or not, I wouldn't trust them ever again. If that happened to me, I'd've called the Fire Department, had them verify the leak, and then (after the dust settled and the leak got fixed) I'd have called the utility back and BITCHED a supervisor out in full bellow. Bogus calls are a stupid excuse. Have the gas company do caller ID, then sue the dumbasses making prank calls, but take the damn reports seriously when you get 'em. Sorry, but unless it's patently obvious that it's a prank (like, it's a little kid calling, and he can't stop giggling), blowing a report like that off is BULLS***. And there really was a gas leak in your case. That guy needs to have been formally reprimanded for that. Bulls***, bulls***, bulls***, he gave a stupid excuse! I hate intentional incompetence, especially when something seriously tragic could end up happening because of it.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at January 09, 2007 05:55 PM (90ofN)

4 I just had a recent encounter with AT&T regarding my new DSL service. After the first rain of the year my DSL went down and then would down and back up several times an hour. I called their automated service line and pushed twelve buttons, said 'yes' 'no' a few more times before I talked to someone with a pulse. Can you describe your problem, she asked? Yes, I have a bad phone line between my house and your bee box (technicians term) at the end of my road. I have had trouble on this line for three years and every time it rains I have static on my line, I have had six SBC/AT&T technicians tell me the same thing. You guys have a 25 pair and there are no more cable pairs left on the cable feeder. Well, lets do a little trouble shooting on your end to make sure the problem isn't there, she says. I just told you what the trouble is. Lets make sure. I am sure. Well Sir, if we send a tech out to your house and the trouble is inside, we will have to charge you for a service call. Mam, I am a telecommunications technician myself, I have been 10 years, I have the same equipment your tech has, I have sat stood over your tech's shoulder and watched him test your line and had him tell me that AT&T should replace this span of cable ten years ago, but send out your tech and we will go through this again. To my surprise and relief, a tech I used to work with at another company 10 years ago showed up driving his AT&T van. I told him what I was going through and he swapped pairs on their cable and now my DSL is running fine. I know these folks have a script they follow with questions to ask you, but can we just skip down to part where you get you a$$ out here and fix the problem I have with your service? I guess not.

Posted by: Yolo Cowboy at January 10, 2007 05:29 PM (vk71m)

5 Hey Yolo! That same situation happened to me with Verizon DSL, except it took about ten hours over three weeks for me to get past the Indian operators and on to the supervisor here in the USA who diagnosed the problem and fixed it in about 5 minutes.

Posted by: annika at January 10, 2007 06:30 PM (1EshY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 08, 2007

BCS Halftime Update

In the battle of strength vs. strength, Florida's defense is beating Ohio State's offense, like a freakin' drum.

I thought it would be a low scoring game. It's halftime and they've already gone over the over.

I actually like that Tressel went for it on 4th from their own 29, but they should have converted.

I thought FL's kicker sucked. Who's that dude?

I don't think the game is over though. If it was the NFL, yes. But this is college, and that's what I love about NCAAF. Anything can happen. (Such as sucky Florida whooping OSU, I guess.)

The OSU band is playing "My Heart Will Go On?!" Ouch, the irony!

Third Quarter Update: FL's on the 2 yard line. That's it, I'm done. This game's too boring to sit through the rest. OSU did not show up tonight. Congrats to Florida. I guess the BCS worked, though I still would rather have seen SC play for the title.

Posted by: annika at 08:03 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

1 YOO HOO Casca, where are you? You were such an insufferable sore winner all year you are really going to have to eat some shit now! First: Your teams suckage pisses me off because I HATE Floriduh. Second; 41-14? and they even spotted you the first seven points! What was that? third: Don't give me any crap about Ted Ginn being hurt. So what, If Texas' Qb hadn't got multiple concussions they might have played in a bcs game, but thats all shoulda woulda coulda. What's up with Mr. Sweatervest, did he not prepare them? Oh well, suc-eyes, better luck next year.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 08, 2007 10:18 PM (9B/3g)

2 Damn Kyle, does getting assfucked make you bitter? Tressel did not show up prepared, and I must say it's the worst coaching job I've seen from him since Penn State last year. My other guess is that Krenzel wasn't doing film study with Troy over the past month, like he was during the season. It really showed. That, and the left tackle was clearly paid off. I guess Boise State is numba one.

Posted by: Casca at January 08, 2007 10:58 PM (2gORp)

3 Kyle, don't you know how to let a person properly mourn? Having nursed my wounds after UCLA took USC out of the BCS Championship, I was appreciative that no one here made a point of rubbing salt in the wound. Apparently your Mommy forgot to teach you manners. So, who appointed you to be Chief Asshole today?

Posted by: shelly at January 09, 2007 02:16 AM (SLFj+)

4 Thanks Shelly, but a Texan being an asshole? Who can imagine such a thing?

Posted by: Casca at January 09, 2007 07:49 AM (Y7t14)

5 A very dull game after a very promising opening three minutes. I had Ohio State as my preseason number one, so I was rooting for 'em, but since we won the Holiday Bowl, I've been fairly content to be a non-partisan observer. Cal will be in the 2008 Rose Bowl, playin' Wisconsin. USC and Texas will have a rematch in the 2008 BCS title game. And only four weeks until letter-of-intent day!

Posted by: Hugo at January 09, 2007 11:13 AM (yLeev)

6 Pete Carroll already has said that the incoming class is the best he has seen. That's going some, but he said it. He will never go back to the Pros; he says that it is silly to go for one first round choice when he gets about 30 each year.

Posted by: shelly at January 09, 2007 08:26 PM (SLFj+)

7 Shelly, Casca had it coming, his incessant crowing all year made it necessary.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 10, 2007 03:24 AM (eqm3m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Epiphany Epiphany

This weekend I realized something, and I wanted to share it with you. Despite being bombarded with dire warnings from every corner, I've never felt afraid about global warming. Not even once since all the hysteria began. Al Gore needs to work harder.

Posted by: annika at 09:45 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The bumper stickers tell me "If you're not mad, you're not paying attention." And the logic of bumper stickers is infallible.

Posted by: Mark at January 08, 2007 11:32 AM (krump)

2 The number of errors in Gore's movie should have embarrassed his supporters. However, despite numerous people documenting the errors, the MSM was virtually silent, quoting only those who supported Gore's political (as opposed to scientific) agenda. I'm not the least bit worried either. In another 20 years, Time Magazine (or some other Left-wing rag) is going to revert back to the global cooling theory, and the enviro-whackos are going to worry about the next Ice Age. The enviornmental movement is really just an anti-capitalist movement, and so when fascination with global warming goes away, they will find something else.

Posted by: blu at January 08, 2007 11:58 AM (LtzGE)

3 It must suck to be afraid of every gawd damn thing.

Posted by: Casca at January 08, 2007 12:40 PM (Y7t14)

4 I am much more frightened of global suckage. If hollywood starts sucking any more the whole USA will be pulled into caleefornia.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 08, 2007 03:04 PM (9B/3g)

5 It's in the 50's in Syracuse in January. I've used the snow blower once this winter. If this is global warming, bring it on!

Posted by: MarkD at January 08, 2007 03:46 PM (VyQ5A)

6 Yeah, me neither. It reminds me of so many fads that have come and gone. People are such sheep. Baaa! Give me a research grant to study global warming.

Posted by: Joules at January 08, 2007 04:36 PM (u4CYb)

7 global warming is a leftwing scam designed to give them an excuse to raise taxes, and bash capitalists and industry. if they don't scare us them they can't raise taxes - selectively, on things and people they don't like. funny how life spans have gone way up since the industrial age, and prosperity has increased too. that is for everyone in the industrialized world. if industrialization was so bad for our health and the globe then we'd a seen worse things by now. if we really want the lives of the poor people in the third world to improve we need to build them some big factories and powerplants.

Posted by: reliapundit at January 08, 2007 09:14 PM (xyulJ)

8 So many conspiracy theorists in one blog! Yes, there are a handful of scientists, most of whom have taken money from fossil fuel companies, who remain somewhat skeptical, though as the years go by, they've backpedaled considerably. There will always be those who say science is wrong, and will pick one or two examples to 'prove' why. This has been going on ever since the days of Colombus and Galileo. For those who get their science news from Fox or science fiction writers and think there is still a healthy debate in the scientific community, simply read the scientific opinion on climate change, then some of the science itself. I'd be glad to have someone critique that information from other than a polemicist's stance.

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 06:04 AM (h7Ciu)

9 The science is by no means clear, and scientists are divided on the issue. Most are independent of fossil fuel support. The historical temperature data you reference are for 2,000 years, and the global temperature swings occur on a roughly 12,000 year cycle. We are actually overdue for an ice age, and if global warming can prevent that, I am for it. During the last ice age the ice pack was one mile thick in North Carolina.

Posted by: Joints at January 09, 2007 07:32 AM (Dh/a/)

10 > The science is by no means clear, and scientists are divided on the issue. Most are independent of fossil fuel support. I invite you to provide support for the above statements. Note that the position taken by Science Academies of the G8, China, India, and several dozen others are in conflict with your position. I have heard denialists say that "this warming is to be expected because we are just now coming out of an ice age", which conflicts with your position as well. At what point in time did you expect the next ice age to start, if human-induced warming was not a factor? What basis of support do you have for that position?

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 08:06 AM (h7Ciu)

11 Yes, there is a rise in the global temperature. What we disagree about is whether we are the cause of it or not. What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make. Just because something is the prevailing opinion (humans cause global warming) doesn't mean it is correct. Just as the fact that the prevailing scientific opinion at varying times has been that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling, and humans weren't around for the vast majority of it. Most of the earth has been covered by water at one time or another, and yet there weren't any evil CFCs around to cause the melting of the ice caps. We have recorded data for what, 100-150 years worth of temperature readings? And how old is the earth? Those of us who resist regulation like the Kyoto protocol, which does all it can to harm industrialized nations while exempting emerging countries, see this as a typical double standard. If global warming is THE threat of our lifetime, then no one should be exempt. But, like most feel good, leftists causes, this is more about punishing success.

Posted by: Frank at January 09, 2007 09:19 AM (YHZAl)

12 Frank wrote: >What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make. Fox News is not a science organization and is clearly heavily biased towards the few sceptics, so one would do well to seek other information sources. Saying so about Fox News is hardly immature, indeed I see it as quite the opposite. YMMV. > Just because something is the prevailing opinion (humans cause global warming) doesn't mean it is correct. Just as the fact that the prevailing scientific opinion at varying times has been that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. Actually, those where church positions that were being fought by scientists such as Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus, and others. The first two sacrificed themselves to stand on principle, and we are fortunate they did. > The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling, and humans weren't around for the vast majority of it. True. > Most of the earth has been covered by water at one time or another, and yet there weren't any evil CFCs around to cause the melting of the ice caps. True. However, CO2 has risen far above any prehistoric levels we've examined. Since 1878, CO2 has risen from 278 ppm to over 380 ppm now. Since CO2 is most significant steady-state greenhouse gas (GHG), one becomes less and less confident in skeptics who say that the current warming is 'natural' or simply an unexplainable abberation. But read the references I provided and critique them; everyone seems to be relying on their Fox News et al biased reporting. > We have recorded data for what, 100-150 years worth of temperature readings? And how old is the earth? There are many ways to determine the temperature, rainfall, and atmospheric composition of prior centuries and millenia through the paleoclimatologlical techniques of ice cores, geological sample analysis, and even tree rings, to name a few. Don't be afraid to read the links I provided above. And a large segment of the paleoclimate scientific community can be found at realclimate.org.

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 09:47 AM (h7Ciu)

13 Will, Educating you would be a difficult challenge, even though I was a university professor for thirty years. Start with snowballearth.org, and then look up these references: THE GREAT INFRA-CAMBRIAN GLACIATION. W. B. Harland and M. J. S. Rudwick in Scientific American, Vol. 211, No. 2, pages 28-36; February 1964. THE EFFECT OF SOLAR RADIATION VARIATIONS ON THE CLIMATE OF THE EARTH. M. I. Budyko in Tellus, Vol. 21, pages 611-619, 1969. ENERGY BALANCE CLIMATE MODELS. G. R. North, R. F. Cahalan and J. A. Coakley, Jr., in Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pages 91-121; February 1981. MODELLING THE GEOCHEMICAL CARBON CYCLE. R. A. Berner and A. C. Lasaga in Scientific American, Vol. 236, No. 3, pages 74-81; March 1989. LATE PROTEROZOIC LOW-LATITUDE GLOBAL GLACIATION: THE SNOWBALL EARTH. J. L. Kirschvink in The Proterozoic Biosphere, J. W. Schopf and C. Klein, editors, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 51-52, 1992. THE NEOPROTEROZOIC CLIMATIC PARADOX: EQUATORIAL PALEOLATITUDE FOR MARINOAN GLACIATION NEAR SEA LEVEL IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. P. W. Schmidt and G. E. Williams in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 134, pages 107-124. A NEOPROTEROZOIC SNOWBALL EARTH. P. F. Hoffman, A. J. Kaufman, G. P. Halverson and D. P. Schrag in Science, Vol. 281, pages 1342-1346; 28 August 1998.

Posted by: Joints at January 09, 2007 09:58 AM (Dh/a/)

14 Joints: You've simply tossed out a wheelbarrow full of references (no online links) with no suggestion of even a thesis statement. I could also whip out hundreds of such links fairly easily, though no one here will start running around campuses tracking them down. Since this technique of 'snowballing' references doesnt' work here, perhaps you like to provide a peer review of the article I mentioned above? Or demonstrate the fallicies several dozen Science Academies all committed (including the US and UK)? Or deconstruct the findings at realclimate.org? (Hint, they invite such in their article comment sections, which get quite long. You may be disappointed in the depth and soundness of the disagreement, however). Note that a large number of climatologists were skeptical throughout the 80s and into the 90s. Indeed, a good scientist should remain skeptical until presented with evidence to believe otherwise. btw, what was your scientific specialty? The topic of your doctorate?

Posted by: wiil at January 09, 2007 10:58 AM (h7Ciu)

15 "What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make." Get used to it: That's typical Will. He pretends he's erudite by quoting people who support his position and disqualifying anybody who disagrees. Don't bother with him; he's like debating a 6th grader. What's worse, he's not a subject matter expert in anything but name-dropping. Save your breath. I'd rather debate, Straw. He at least has his own opinions.

Posted by: blu at January 09, 2007 11:18 AM (LtzGE)

16 From the snowballearth.org faq; "Could a snowball earth occur again? The steadily increasing Solar luminosity and the present continental configuration conspire against it, but a large asteroidal or cometary impact could possibly trigger a snowball earth given the present cold ocean. If a preponderance of tropical continents made the globe cold, the present geography with its enlarged boreal and subtropical land areas should have made it relatively warm. Before the ongoing intervention by our own species, this this was not the case."

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 11:19 AM (h7Ciu)

17 will: "there are a handful of scientists, most of whom have taken money from fossil fuel companies" and the source for that is??

Posted by: annika at January 09, 2007 12:30 PM (zAOEU)

18 Sorry to intrude on Will's E-penis exhibition, but even if we all agreed with him that global warming must be stopped via our blank checks to the IRS or UN, you must remember that the implementation of the plan, to ultimately save the planet, is in the hands of government. The same type of government that loses nuclear secrets, billion dollar space probes, and my Hustler subscription in the mail. The government will manage Global Warming just about as well as they handle public education, the War on Drugs, and immigration. You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

Posted by: Spanky at January 09, 2007 02:21 PM (wkyrW)

19 Annika, glad to oblige. I might note that I refer to those that are consistently skeptical now, and not ones from the 80's, 90's, or even early 00's. A good starting point for working one's way through this information is www.exxonsecrets.org. If anyone has trouble (requires java), then I'll type out some of the names. Pat Michaels, Larry Singer, Robert Ball, Sally Baliunas, etc are just some of the most consistent skeptics, and you'll find their connections at the above site. Pat Michaels was even caught a few months ago trolling for fossil fuel corporation slush. And Exxon alone has pumped at least $16 million to 43 groups to sow the seeds of doubt over climate change (because they don't have to win the argument, just cause doubt and inaction).

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 02:31 PM (h7Ciu)

20 Not to belabor the point, but those wanting to see an excellent overview of what both sides are saying would be well suited to go a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy">here. You'll see I spelled a couple of names wrong of the top of my head...

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 02:56 PM (h7Ciu)

21 Cool. As you know, I'm an agnostic on the issue. I wish i had as much time to research it as you do. I'm wondering though, if you have any references that might tend to show bias on the part of the Global Warming hawks. Or is it your belief that they are totally untainted by any motive other than scientific altruism?

Posted by: annika at January 09, 2007 02:59 PM (zAOEU)

22 "www.exxonsecrets.org" C'mon, Will. Probably no agenda at this site.....it's a freakin Greenpeace site. Don't waste your time, people. These folks are nuts. They are also socialist luddites that HATE capitalism. Yeah, when I want information, I always like to first go to the the most luny left-wing site I can find; or, alternativley, go see a Michael Moore film on the subject. You make fun of Fox News news and then link to a Greenpeace site. LOL. Hey, Will, do you think that Bush blew up the buildings on 9/11? Cuz, I can give you some really awesome links that "prove" that the government was responsible.

Posted by: blu at January 09, 2007 04:18 PM (LtzGE)

23 People like Will put their money on Paul Ehrlich back in the day: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html The global warming nuts come from the same stock.

Posted by: blu at January 09, 2007 04:21 PM (LtzGE)

24 You make fun of Fox News news and then link to a Greenpeace site. LOL. What you say!! But..but he's an Independent, Blu!

Posted by: reagan80 at January 09, 2007 04:47 PM (wkyrW)

25 > if you have any references that might tend to show bias on the part of the Global Warming hawks. The closest I could come would be some of the early models were rather simplistic, providing only very rough orders of magnitude. Undoubtably, there are many non-scientists that this subject evokes an emotional response rather than a rational one. Blu said> Hey, Will, do you think that Bush blew up the buildings on 9/11? No, he was reading a book about a goat at that time. Certain misguided policies and inaction in his administration certainly didn't help matters, though. And yes, the previous adminstration also made some missteps in this area. Spanky said> You have no chance to survive. Make your time. From the overview mentioned above; The US National Academy of Sciences issued a report on this phenomenon in 2002, titled Abrupt Climate Change - Inevitable Surprises. [39] "It is important not to be fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change," it stated. "Societies have faced both gradual and abrupt climate changes for millennia and have learned to adapt through various mechanisms, such as moving indoors, developing irrigation for crops, and migrating away from inhospitable regions. Nevertheless, because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly." Blu said> People like Will put their money on Paul Ehrlich back in the day: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html Actually, I didn't, though I'm not a Simonian either. Two quick items for you; speaking of Simon the cornucopian, in what month or quarter was the highest global oil production?

Posted by: will at January 09, 2007 05:11 PM (h7Ciu)

26 Not caring about Global Warming is one thing. But how come nobody seems to be worried about the evil donuts from the future that reprogrammed the stock market last year. That's the real scandal!

Posted by: annika at January 09, 2007 08:28 PM (1EshY)

27 Followup from yesterday, where the administration is admitting greenhouse gas warming; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html?sub=AR "People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change." The center said there are indications that the rate at which global temperatures are rising is speeding up. ------------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/science/10climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Â“A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,Â” the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El NiÃ±o and the human influence were not known. A link between greenhouse gases and climate change was also made in a December news conference by Dirk Kempthorne, the secretary of the interior, as that agency proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Still, the climate agencyÂ’s shift in language came as a surprise to several public affairs officials there. They said they had become accustomed in recent years to having any mention of a link between climate trends and human activities played down or trimmed when drafts of documents went to the Commerce Department and the White House for approval. James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the release reflected longstanding views within the administration. Â“ItÂ’s helpful for them to describe what is a question in many peopleÂ’s minds Â— what is the human factor, what is the El NiÃ±o factor,Â” Mr. Connaughton said of the NOAA release. Â“From our perspective, what was in the press release was a direct reflection of what the president and folks in his administration have been saying for some time.Â” Mr. Bush has made two speeches on climate. He first expressly accepted that humans were contributing to global warming in a news conference in Denmark in July 2005 on the way to an economic summit in Scotland, saying, Â“Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.Â” But the governmentÂ’s scientific bureaucracy, where public affairs officials and scientists as recently as last year complained that findings pointing to climate dangers were being suppressed, has taken time to catch up. Â“ThereÂ’s been some sensitivity to the fact that some people have complained that NOAA and other parts of the government havenÂ’t been as open as they would like them to have been on this,Â” said Jay Lawrimore, a climatologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., where the temperature trends are compiled. Â“Now NOAA is making an effort to be clearer on some of the influences.Â” Mr. Lawrimore said there was no way to account for the trends, be they the melting of Arctic sea ice or the warming of winters, without including an influence from heat-trapping gases. Â“Year after year as we continue to see warmer temperatures,Â” he said, Â“there are more and more converts convinced that itÂ’s not just natural variability and not just something thatÂ’s going to return back to temperatures we saw 40 or 50 years ago Â— that in fact we are doing something to the climate.Â”

Posted by: will at January 10, 2007 08:53 PM (h7Ciu)

28 So, Will, if I get your drift after like a dozen posts, I take it you believe in the induced global warming theory? Enough already! Go away. Seriously, you are like debating a spoiled, over-indulged 6 year-old. You couldn't possibly ever be wrong, could you? Here's an idea: Go look in the mirror and argue with yourself. That way you could keep the argument going for as long as you like; and, God knows, you'd be totally enchanted with the person looking back at you. Linking articles or lunatic left-wing blogs time and time again isn't going to convince anybody. You don't have any credibility. Anybody can cut'n'paste. Another idea: develop an original thought.

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 10:35 AM (j8oa6)

29 Struck a nerve, did I blu? Or am I deconstructing a position you are desperately trying to cling to, regardless of the findings? I've been there before, and it indeed can be trying. I'm no longer a Republican as a consequence. On the subject of whether or not GW is human induced, opinions from those other than climatologists (or climate-focused researchers in related fields) are meaningless. And yes, this means Rush, O'Reilly, your barber, etc. If you get your information from non-scientists on this matter, you're getting uniformed sound-bites at best, propaganda for the vast remainder. I'm simply providing references and information. If you don't want to consider it, keep your eyes (and your mind) closed. Keep watching Fox News and believe that we are winning the war, we've found WMD (or will very soon), the dollar is strong, and Bush and the Republicans are more popular than ever. Developing an original thought on this subject sounds attractive, but is frankly meaningless outside of the science. If you came up with such an original thought, we'd have to ask to see the scientific method and process by which you arrived at your conclusion. Pulling it out of a dark place, regardless of how rhetorically elegant it sounded, provides us with little more than fertilizer. I work with scientists and engineers every day, and know the importance of careful examination of data; if you have friends that are true scientists (i.e., who perform and publish research), talk to them about this subject; be prepared to listen. What's next is the policy discussion; that's where the fun begins, and where "original thought" from anybody can be examined, weighted, and scored. Engineers are well suited to providing the impacts of various proposed alternatives, but it will take true leadership to implement measures to avoid economy-wrecking climate disaster for our descendents.

Posted by: will at January 11, 2007 02:44 PM (GzvlQ)

30 Oh, blu, if you can provide the errors that you understand to be in Gore's movie, I'll be glad to debate you. If you have it in you.

Posted by: will at January 11, 2007 02:46 PM (GzvlQ)

31 I know you couldn't let it go. The mirror awaits you. Go talk to the one you love most. p.s. do you carry a picture of yourself in your wallet?

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 03:04 PM (j8oa6)

32 This is just one article I could find. And I declare that my "experts" are superior to yours. In fact, I dismiss all your experts because they don't agree with me. So, don't bother debating. (See, I'm using your technique: discredit any other sources as inferior. Man, this is fun. If a person uses Will debating technique, he is always right! Yea!! --------------------------------------------- U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GOREÂ’S MOVIE June 27, 2006 The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled Â“Scientists OK GoreÂ’s Movie for AccuracyÂ” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about APÂ’s bias and methodology. AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al GoreÂ’s movie Â“An Inconvenient Truth.Â” In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the Â“more than 100 top climate researchersÂ” they attempted to contact to review Â“An Inconvenient Truth.Â” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore Â“five stars for accuracy.Â” AP claims 19 scientists viewed GoreÂ’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific Â“skepticsÂ” they claim to have contacted. The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, CorrellÂ’s reported links as an Â“affiliateÂ” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides Â“expert testimonyÂ” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm The AP also chose to ignore GoreÂ’s reliance on the now-discredited Â“hockey stickÂ” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990Â’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last weekÂ’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled MannÂ’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator InhofeÂ’s statement on the broken Â“Hockey Stick.Â” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 ) GoreÂ’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because thereÂ’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro. Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore: Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on GoreÂ’s film: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Â– Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006 Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: Â“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.Â” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal GoreÂ’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect. Â“Â…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.Â”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film: Â“Â…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?Â”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to GoreÂ’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,Â” Â–Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press. # # # # #

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 03:25 PM (j8oa6)

33 Oh what the heck: one more. Once again, I declare the "Will Rules of Debate," and, therefore, my experts are superior to all others...cuz I work with scientists and engineers afterall. And because of that I couldn't possibly be wrong. ---------------------- Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths: (1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.) (2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming. (3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period). (4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century." (5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming. Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime? "An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth." Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 03:28 PM (j8oa6)

34 "I'm afraid your evidence is getting worse as we go along." Are you kidding me? Will, you are so utterly predictable. You did what you always do (and I'm certain everybody reading this thread expected): Insist that you're experts are better than the person with whom you are debating. You also employed your typical trick of attacking the person/scientist if you don't like their viewpoint. And while insisting their opinions are wrong, you never actually prove them wrong. Any serious person reading your response is going to do what I did: laugh. You didn't disprove anything. You simply did what you always do: Insist your opinions and your experts are better. Now, seriously, go away. Your mirror is calling. p.s. The list of those who think the Â“hockey stickÂ” theory is crap is long and distinguished. As usual, you're excellent debate technique amounted to "that's not true cuz I say." p.p.s. Don't bother responding; I just wanted to see how long your undeniable ego would keep you posting. As expected, you reacted in the exact manner all that have read you on this site would have expected.

Posted by: blu at January 11, 2007 08:25 PM (IYDwv)

35 Breaking news, blu; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ > p.s. The list of those who think the Â“hockey stickÂ” theory is crap is long and distinguished. Oh? Please list them and we will examine your claim.

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 09:22 AM (h7Ciu)

36 > p.s. do you carry a picture of yourself in your wallet? Actually, I do. I really do. And so do you. It's called a driver's license.

Posted by: will at January 12, 2007 06:07 PM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 06, 2007

Lindsay Logan Update

LINDSAY'S APPENDIX DIAGNOSED FROM PAPARAZZI PHOTO ANALYSIS Â— EXPERTS SAY BRITTANY OKAY

A's J Exclusive!!!

CENTURY CITY, CA Â— Sources close to mega-pop star Lindsay Logan have confirmed that her emergency appendectomy was the result of a little known experimental procedure called "toxicological remote analysis of medical photography."

The new technique uses super-high magnification of ordinary photographs to enable early diagnosis of many life threatening ailments, according to doctors at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles.

"By analyzing any external snapshot under extreme magnification one can often see inside the patient's body," explained Dr. Valderramma, a pioneer in the new technique. "It all depends of course, on the particular orifice present on the photographic film."

Dr. Valderramma, an otorhinolaryngologist, often uses toxicological remote analysis of medical photography to screen his own patients for tonsillectomies.

"The technique is most useful for diagnosing tonsillitis, since photographs showing a patient's mouth are commonly available," said Valderramma. Evidently, it was only a matter of time before someone applied the same method to check for disorders of the lower torso, such as appendicitis.

"Nowadays anyone can easily obtain photographs of a young lady's cootch on the internet," explained Dr. Valderramma. "So in a way, Ms. Lohan is quite lucky that someone performed the analysis on one of her paparazzi photos. Her own skankiness may have saved her life."

"It's just another example of the wonders of modern science," the doctor added with a wide grin.

Posted by: annika at 06:08 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Playoff Picks, We Try Again

Okay, I think it's safe to say everyone was surprised by the Colts' defense today.

On to game two: Dallas at Seattle.

Both teams are well coached, yet have stumbled lately.

Romo has played poorly in his last couple of games, but Seattle's secondary may be vulnerable from injuries sustained last weekend.

Hasselbeck throws more interceptions, but Romo fumbles more.

Tough game to pick, but I'm going with the superior quarterback, at least on paper, Tony Romo. Plus, he makes great ribs.

Seattle is the favorite and the spreads range from one to three points. Take the three points, bet Dallas, and laugh at the suckers later. This time for real.

Update: My advice to Tony Romo is this: from now on, be wary of any lady cops named Einhorn.

Update 2: My final record for the year, with 16 games, is 8-6-2. The two pushes tell you exactly how good I am!

Posted by: annika at 05:49 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Playoff Picks

The first game today is KC at Indy. The favorite is Indy, by 7 points. Interesting twists include the following:

Indy's run defense is ranked last.

KC's RB Larry Johnson is the league's second best rusher, and having a career year.

Dungy and Edwards are great friends, but Dungy will be looking to avenge Indy's 41-0 loss to Edwards the last time they met in the playoffs.

Manning needs to prove he can win in the playoffs.

I think Indy will win, but LJ and the Colts crappy defense make it too tempting not to take KC plus the 7 points. Go with KC+7 and laugh at the suckers later.

Result: Indianapolis kills the Chiefs, 23 to 8. I lose.

Posted by: annika at 01:14 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

January 05, 2007

Happy News

Cinnamon Dolce latte has returned to Starbucks!

OMG!

Posted by: annika at 10:36 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

206kb generated in CPU 0.0389, elapsed 0.1174 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.09 seconds, 402 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 4573
Files: 14
Bytes: 62.4M
CPU Time: 2:14
Queries: 243839

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

January 20, 2007

January 18, 2007

January 17, 2007

January 16, 2007

January 11, 2007

January 10, 2007

January 09, 2007

January 08, 2007

January 06, 2007

January 05, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds