Is truth racist? The NCAA is.

In this politically correct world of ours, one thing seems to be increasingly obvious: those of the political left have decided to ignore truth in preference to politically convenient lies. What do I mean by that? There are certain things in the United States that are simply true -- numerically and irrefutably true -- but to recognize the truth is to be branded "racist."

Fact: African Americans comprise 12% of the population of the United States. African Americans comprise 45% of all murder victims, of whom 91% were killed by African Americans. The leading cause of death for African American men is homicide. For African American women is the second leading cause. Annually, the United States spends over $5 billion on emergency and physical or occupational therapy associated with crime-related injuries and deaths. (Women's Council on African American Affairs, Inc.). It is simply dangerous to be black -- and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

While we are about it, let's get this "African American" crap out of the way. If you are an United States citizen, then you are an American -- full stop. Your ethnicity or race is related to a population whose members identify with each other on the basis of common ancestry or geneology, cultural, linguistic, religious or physical traits. Africa is not comprised of peoples of one ethnicity -- there are many races in Africa, from Bantu to Coptic Egyptians, to Berbers to Tuareg tribesmen. The Tutsi are tall peoples with very black skin. The Tuareg are shorter with thin aquiline noses and lighter skin. Coptic Egyptians are separated by religion and physical characteristics from the Islamic Egyptians. They are all African Americans in the way that I am European American. But what would that say about me? I could be of Sicilian origin -- typically dark skinned, black hair and shorter. Or Norwegian, tall and blond. Catholic or Lutheran. From dirt-poor, starving Irish stock or aristocratic French heritage. But generally, I would be "White." As people from West African (or tropical African) descent are "Black." Those from the Far East, "Asian." If the general description does not fit, then don't use it. Though "Hispanic" is less a skin-based collective description and more a cultural assessment of ethnicity ... one based on the fact that the Spanish were aggressive imperialists, and thought that all conquered people should speak Spanish and worship the Pope. So you have people as different as Mexicans of Mayan ancestry and Cubans of Castillian Spanish descent being described as "Hispanic." Weird.

Both the quote of statistics and my rant about race/ethnicity would earn me a front row seat on the downtown express to damnation if up to the liberal left. But that would not necessarily make the comments incorrect or risible.

Let's get this straight, I AM NOT RACIST. Two of my mentors growing up are black men. My mentor with the Federal Government is hands down the one of the most decent and intelligent men I have ever known -- and black. I would vote for Condi for President -- seriously -- not because she is black, but because she is incredibly smart and has real integrity. Get in her way and she will squash you like a bug. I actually support Obama -- certainly in preference to ANY other Democrat and most Republicans. I abhor the fiasco of the Jena 6 -- a crime by one person on another must be met with equal force of the law, irrespective of race, ethnicity or gender. And the bullshit about asking for permission to sit under the White Tree ... the administration of that school should be in jail for permitting de facto segregation to exist in this day and age.

But the point of this is to talk about sports. Huh? Yes, sports. You see, universities and colleges across this fair nation of ours recruit athletes for scholarships so that the business machine of NCAA sports has its cannon fodder. The supporters of this system loudly claim that this is the "ticket out of the ghettos" for the lucky few. The trouble with this is that it is based on a few lies: (a) scholarship implies a basic ability to read and write, perhaps even to perform elementary math; (b) the recipients of the largess will actually learn something in college; (c) it is right and worthy to spend the funds available on athletes as opposed to poor but intelligent (or at least partly educated) persons looking to better their lots in life; (d) each of the recipients will stay out of the ghetto thereafter -- itself implying that they will all proceed to good jobs or professional sports after they leave; (e) they will actually be spend any time on academic pursuits. I could go on.

College sports is big business. Huge sums of money are generated from media rights and advertising -- not to mention the Vegas aspect of gambling. Much of it is plowed right back into the machine, but little makes it way back for the purposes universities are established: to promote learning. The kids that get recruited for college are recruited for their athletic ability -- solely -- and not because they are good students that happen to be proficient at some sport. The community from which the students are culled does not benefit from educated persons that may re-enter that community with knowledge and a desire to raise the standard of people living in it benefit it. Instead, it receives back people whose bodies have been damaged and can no longer participate in NCAA sports, or those that "did not make it to the pros." They are also often functionally illiterate. Their whole college career a sham in which "Art Appreciation 101" features as core courses designed to maintain a minimum grade point average required by the NCAA. Puh-leeze.

A certain William Dowling from Rutgers University has a history of taking flak for his brave stance on the subject (2003):

"One Nate Robinson, a lineman highly ranked in SuperPrep, had earlier signed to play for the University of Miami. It turned out that he was unable to make even the dismally low 820 SAT score Miami requires for football players. So he came to Rutgers instead.

The boosters went into a frenzy of rejoicing. And so, presumably, did the members of the "Academic Oversight Committee": Robert Boikess, Roger Cohen, Emmet Dennis, Gus Friedrich, Jim Hughes, Arnold Hyndman, Harry Janes, Robert Jenkins, Pat Mayer, Jeff Rubin, Tom Stephens, John Worobey, and Kathryn Uhrich, and Carl Kirschner.*

Could we be serious for a second? Nate Robinson's combined SAT score was 800. A student with an 800 SAT might be able to do the work at Rutgers if he spent every available moment of his time on his course work. It would be hard. Even putting in 60 hours a week studying, it would be a tremendous struggle for such an individual to keep up with his better-prepared classmates.

Maybe, just maybe, it could be done. But it's brutally dishonest to pretend it can be done by an 800-SAT freshman who's made to put in 40-50 hours a week on developing his physical skills, and then go on frequent weekend trips away from campus. Even a top student who'd entered Rutgers with a 1400 SAT would have a hard enough time keeping up a decent GPA under that regimen.

Nate Robinson is not the miscreant here. He's just a pawn in the sleazy game of commercialized college athletics, viz.

• the coaches who will tell any lie to get a recruit;
• the administrators who are happy to perform as lackeys of the Athletics Department;
• the campus newspaper sportswriters and local sports columnists who serve as its PR shills;
• the boosters who supply slush fund money to attract any "blue chip" prospect who might make them feel more important by "getting us a winner" (see the recent Fab Five case, in which basketball players were paid nearly a million dollars to play for Michigan); and
• the TV networks who rake in billions of dollars by getting institutions of higher learning to prostitute themselves to commercialized athletics."

Dowling managed to get himself in hot water again yesterday with the following: "If you were giving the scholarship to an intellectually brilliant kid who happens to play a sport, that's fine," he told the Times. "But they give it to a functional illiterate who can't read a cereal box, and then make him spend 50 hours a week on physical skills. That's not opportunity. If you want to give financial help to minorities, go find the ones who are at the library after school." For this, he was branded as racist by the Head of Athletic and Rutger's President.

The NJ Star-Ledger writes: "He makes no mention of the athletes who enter Rutgers with below average SAT scores, apply themselves in the classroom and end up the pride of their families. Rutgers is seventh out of the 119 Division 1 football programs according to the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, and first among all state universities. The cumulative GPA is 2.7, with more than 30 percent achieving a grade-point average about 3.0."

Which students might they be referring to? Just because Rutgers is first among the ignorant does not necessarily mean that they are attending to the academic needs of its students. They might simply be better at stuffing the ballot box of basket-weaving courses. Let's be clear: only 30% of scholarship students achieve a grade average of "B." We know nothing of the courses studied or the graduate rates. Nothing. If there was anything positive to say about that, you can be sure that the President of Rutgers would have trotted that out for display.

The Editor in Chief of the Washington Times (liberal-weenie newspaper) Wes Pruden, has this to say on the subject: " Fewer than half of the scholarship athletes at major schools graduate; not a single player on one recent national championship basketball team bothered to finish school." That was the NCAA Div. 1 Cinncinatti. And it is not like good schools are immune from this virus: Duke is reported as awarding $4 million in scholarships to 550 student athletes in a recent year when 5,900 other undergraduates received scholarships worth only $400,000. Duke, as you may know is a perennial powerhouse in basketball.

We supposedly stopped selling humans for profit in this country at the end of the Civil War. But the trade goes on under the guise of athletics: "[t]wo high-school football coaches who prosecutors say schemed to sell a high-school athlete to the University of Alabama have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Memphis for extortion, promotion of bribery and conspiracy. One of the coaches testified that he collected $200,000 from a 'Bama booster to deliver the player to Tuscaloosa. No one can say that Milton Kirk and Lynn Lang didn't work for the money. Before delivering the boy to the Crimson Tide, they shopped him to boosters or coaches (or both) at Arkansas, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Florida State and Michigan State. The player, who was apparently unaware that his coaches were getting paid to "guide" him, finally wound up at the University of Memphis as a kind of consolation prize." (JWReview).

The character of the recruits is an open sore for anyone that cares to look at it. Hardly a day goes by in which we don't read of some crime committed by the benefits of athletic scholarships. "The University of Michigan played two convicted felons. A wide receiver at Auburn pleaded guilty to sexual relations with an underage girl. A Florida player, recruited for his speed, was convicted of driving the getaway car in a jewel heist. A player at Cincinnati was convicted of rape. The co-captain at Washington State was sentenced to a year in prison for punching out a girl. A Wisconsin player was convicted of assault on a young woman in a dormitory. A Notre Dame booster went to prison for embezzling $35,000, which he paid as "bonuses" to 12 players."

But when coaches and administration rake it in, all can be forgotten. CBS paid $6 billion to televise the NCAA college basketball tournament for a few years, that is billion.The million-dollar coach, once a rarity, is now the norm. From USA Today, "[h]ead coaches at the NCAA's top-level schools are making an average of $950,000 this year, not counting benefits, incentives, subsidized housing or any of the perks they routinely receive. At least 42 of the 119 Division I-A coaches are earning $1 million or more this year, up from five in 1999.

Jim Tressel, coach of No. 1-ranked Ohio State, and Mack Brown, who steered Texas to the national championship a year ago, are among the nine coaches making more than $2 million. Iowa's Kirk Ferentz will pocket a guaranteed $4.6 million in an atypical 13-month period ending next June, including $1.8 million in one-time payments. With the incentive bonuses he still can earn, he could push his take to more than $4.7 million. That's the most among the 107 coaches for whom USA TODAY could obtain a contract or other official document showing compensation.

Oklahoma's Bob Stoops is the only coach in that group who has cleared the $3 million-a-year bar in guaranteed pay, although Ferentz likely will join him in 2007." And that is just the surface pay. Then there are the benefits such as country club memberships, the use of booster's private planes and vacation homes, slush fees paid for outfitting athletes in certain clothing.

Do you think whether a young black man from a poor background gets an education even enters the collective mind of the university, NCAA and its coaches for a nanosecond? Bill Cosby has received no end of grief because he has called for blacks to look in the mirror and decide to stop this crap - to stand up and change black society. I am looking in the mirror and calling for whites to stop that crap too, our own aiding and abetting of this scandal. And largely, the scandal centers around the treatment of poor black kids.

If we want a race-neutral society, we need to start acting like we do. You can't support both affirmative action and the NCAA system -- they are at odds with each other. Lots of Republicans hate affirmative action, but are ardent fans of college sports. Reconcile that one. No wonder nothing has been achieved in the last 40 years.

You can't give a slap on the hand to a criminal because they are an athlete -- or pound them for the same reason (think about the Duke Lacrosse team). We need to foster a society where anyone who wants an education can get one -- and if they do not want one, then they should not be looking for the benefits of one; the pay, the housing, the prestige, anything. Michael Vick is an accused felon, an athlete from the ghetto, and the beneficiary of an enormous string of winks and nods in his direction. Yet, might there not have been someone from his neighborhood that wanted to become an eye surgeon who simply couldn't get past the hurdles of securing the education? All I read about are excuses of how Vick was deprived -- how dog fighting is OK culturally from where he comes from, how it is OK in many other parts of the world. Great, but it is against the law in the United States.

Let's get the politics out of it and start looking at the truth.

Is truth racist?

In this politically correct world of ours, one thing seems to be increasingly obvious: those of the political left have decided to ignore truth in preference to politically convenient lies. What do I mean by that? There are certain things in the United States that are simply true -- numerically and irrefutably true -- but to recognize the truth is to be branded "racist."

Fact: African Americans comprise 12% of the population of the United States. African Americans comprise 45% of all murder victims, of whom 91% were killed by African Americans. The leading cause of death for African American men is homicide. For African American women is the second leading cause. Annually, the United States spends over $5 billion on emergency and physical or occupational therapy associated with crime-related injuries and deaths. (Women's Council on African American Affairs, Inc.).

Let's get this African American crap out of the way. If you are an United States citizen, then you are an American -- full stop. Your ethnicity or race is related to a population whose members identify with each other on the basis of common ancestry or geneology, cultural, linguistic, religious or physical traits. Africa is not comprised of peoples of one ethnicity -- there are many races in Africa, from Bantu to Coptic Egyptians, to Berbers to Tuareg tribesmen. The Tutsi are tall peoples with very black skin. The Tuareg are shorter with thin aquiline noses and lighter skin. Coptic Egyptians are separated by religion and physical characteristics from the Islamic Egyptians. They are all African Americans in the way that I am European American. But what would that say about me? I could be of Sicilian origin -- typically dark skinned, black hair and shorter. Or Norwegian, tall and blond. Catholic or Lutheran. From dirt-poor, starving Irish stock or aristocratic French heritage. But generally, I would be "white." As people from West African descent are "black." Those from the Far East, "Asian." If the general description does not fit, then don't use it.

Both the quote of statistics and my rant about ethnicity would earn me a front row seat on the downtown express to damnation if up to the liberal left. But that would not necessarily make the comments incorrect or risible.


The point of this is to talk about sports. Huh? Yes, sports. You see, universities and colleges across this fair nation of ours recruit athletes for scholarships so that the business machine of NCAA sports has its cannon fodder. The supporters of this system loudly claim that this is the "ticket out of the ghettos" for the lucky few. The trouble with this is that it is based on a few lies: (a) scholarship implies a basic ability to read and write, perhaps even to perform elementary math; (b) the recipients of the largess will actually learn something in college; (c) it is right and worthy to spend the funds available on athletes as opposed to poor but intelligent (or at least educated) persons looking to better their lots in life; (d) each of the recipients will stay out of the ghetto thereafter -- itself implying that they will all proceed to good jobs or professional sports after they leave; (e) they will actually be spend any time on academic pursuits. I could go on.

College sports is big business. Huge sums of money are generated from media rights and advertising -- not to mention the Vegas aspect of gambling. Much of it is plowed right back into the machine, but little makes it way back for the purposes universities are established: to promote learning. The kids that get recruited for college are recruited for their athletic ability -- solely -- and not because they are good students that happen to be proficient at some sport. The benefit to the community from which the students are culled is not educated persons that may re-enter that community with knowledge to benefit it, but

Clintons -- the dark side of the moon

Apart from an excellent Pink Floyd album, the dark side of the moon is the part you never see (or hear?). And so too, the real Clinton machine has its dark side. But a media probe just circled that little-known region and in the process of beaming back its findings, the editor/mission controller of the probe hit the self-destruct button.

GQ magazine is/was due to have Bill Clinton on the cover of its December issue and inside it was to run an article that gave readers the "skinny" on infighting in the Clinton campaign (Hillary's) and the layout of who has Hillary's ear, who wants it and who is gunning for it. In short, the juicy inside material that is much rumored, but ruthlessly suppressed.

However, Hillary put the axe to it: you publish this, and you will never get access to Bill or me again. A rather graphic and demonstrative example of how the Clinton campaign is being run and how Hillary's "you are either for us or against us" policy works. Those people contributing to the Obama campaign have already been told not to expect any White House invites -- when -- she gets in. Jim Nelson, the editor of GQ, had no illusions about this: it is likely that Hillary will be the next President of the United States and so four years in exile, possibly more, is simply not acceptable. So he caved. Of course, he cited "inner workings" of the magazine and that GQ kills stories all the time, but I don't think that this fools anyone.

Hillary is relentlessly "on message." Anyone who has seen her outside the box, caught unaware by questions not scripted knows that she fares poorly and gets visibly angered. Precisely the sort of person that the campaign seeks to hide ... the hateful, mean-spirited Hillary. The tyrant. The Hillary that would be hard to elect. So there is a real and vast machine in place to ensure that this does not happen and when anyone gets in the way, like GQ, they get the threat which essentially means "I'll squash you like a bug." Not really like the intelligent, likeable, liberal democrat Hillary she is portrayed as, but more like the Cheney-doppelganger she really is (for those of you who do not know what a doppelganger is, google it).

People supporting Hillary loudly acclaim the notion that "Hillary can get things done." Yah, I guess that is true, but if we stop for just a second to see what and how, then the perceived benefit becomes less appealing. I will not rehash the obvious question marks (OK, just a quick one then: (a) Vince Foster; (b) Ron Brown; (c) commodity profits; (d) FBI files; (e) missing billing records; (f) Whitewater; (g) Travelgate; (h) Troopergate; (i) Bill's perjury -- Hillary sided with Bill; (j) Bill's infidelities -- Hillary denied them; (k) health care '94; (l) Iraq flip; (m) the Gregory loans and Presidential pardon; (n) the Rich pardon -- arranged by Hillary; (o) Hillary's vicious character attacks on the women Bill screwed -- Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broadderick -- all claims against Bill since proven true; (p) IRS audits for enemies; (q) demeaning of housewives; (r) the Bekins White House exit looting award; (s) the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy hoax; (t) Lincoln bedroom B&B; (u) classic New York carpetbag; (v) failure of New York Senator Clinton to attend 9/11 funeral for firefighters and policemen -- not one; (w) Hillarycare '08 -- who do you think is really going to pay; (x) Yale link to Black Panthers, Institute for Policy Studies, New World Foundation -- terrorist, extreme socialist and extreme socialist; (y) media control -- NYT is in the same boat as GQ; and (z) does she have any real ideas and plans about Iraq? Any, apart from denying funding to Americans in uniform? Want to see American foreign policy run by U.N. consensus? Want to see Bill using Air Force One as his schtupp-pad?

Where was I? Oh, yes. How many Democratic candidates are actually out there running for President? At least 8 that I can count. Yet can you name more than Obama, Clintstone and Edwards? Probably not, at least not quickly. This is because the Dark Side exerts its influence in a subtle manner: if all you read about is Hillary, then you will vote for her because you do not know any better. Just like advertising, you buy the brand that is foremost in your mind, ignoring whether it has high fructose corn syrup and MSG in it or not. You have to have a few other brands on the shelf too. So you place Obama on the bottom shelf (too inexperienced -- what Hillary has more?), and Edwards on the top shelf out of sight. So your hand reaches for brand Clintstone. The NY Times gets access for eternity and Hillary gets to back to 1700 Pennsylvania Ave.

UAW -- GM does not have enough problems?

I just thought that I would first show you a favored delicacy in Cambodia. Apparently, during the Pol Pot cultural genocide, the people that left the towns to hide in the hills really had nothing else to eat with any protein in it. So they took to deep frying the above.

From the Londont Times: The last correspondent we sent to try one described it thus: “The legs are the size and colour of a Cadbury chocolate finger, though if your chocolate finger was as hirsute as this, you’d definitely take it back to the shop. They’re cooked whole, which is particularly repellent – eyes, fangs, the lot. Pulling the legs off without squeezing the pus out of the abdomen is tricky.”

"Tastes like -- scrawny chicken wings coated in especially sweet plum sauce. With hairs on. There is some debate as to whether you should eat the abdomen. Some gourmets say it’s the sweetest part, with the texture of a soft goat’s eyeball and tasting just like cold duck." Vegetarianism looks good to me from here.

Oh, yes the UAW. For the first time since 1976, they have called out a full court strike on an auto company. At issue: retirement health benefits, job security, and allocation of vehicles to be produced here in the US. Even after the 30,000 or so lost jobs in the last three years, GM still struggles to make a profit -- they may be at break-even. Only the foreign companies are in the black. Why? Well, GM is a Pension Company that makes cars to fund its pension programs. The others make cars. One cannot blame the workers for trying to get some security, but the sad fact of this matter is that striking only increases the vulnerability of GM ... leading to less job security.

Business Week points out: GM wanted to hand the union responsibility of managing $52 billion in long-term medical liabilities in exchange for cash and assets equaling 50% to 60% of the liability. The UAW doesn't. They want 70% of the assets placed into a trust for the workers. GM pays $3.3 billion a year in union retiree medical costs. JPMorgan (JPM) analyst Himanshu Patel estimates GM would save $1.6 billion in cash expenses with a VEBA deal funded at 60% of the liabilities. The health-care trust would also wipe $52 billion in liabilities from GM's books. Assuming Ford Motor (F) and Chrysler get similar contracts, the UAW would become a huge provider of health-care benefits to some 1.5 million people. GM would like that, but control of the company would be where?

GM of North America loses money for every car produced. The strike loses GM $100 million a day. GM loses any which way. Understandably, the workers want to continue to build cars -- and receive the benefit packages that they have become entitled to. But a global car company looks at the numbers and sees clearly that either: (a) they make the cars in another country not burdened with the packages for labor existing in this country; or (b) they have to alter their packages here to be able to compete with the manufacturers with leaner labor practices. Nobody likes losing the employment package you have signed on for ... so they strike. Nobody wins.

Time to eat crow

Ok, in a nice pie crust, some sauce and a sprig of thyme.

Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University took the occasion of Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia as an opportunity to parade before humanity the lengthy list of A-jad's crime against humanity.

I still disagree with the hypocrisy of Columbia in giving a terrorist leader the stage to spew his vile lies and rhetoric while denying equal opportunity to others for political reasons, but he soundly bitch-slapped the bastard: "a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." I will try to dig up the inevitable youtube replay -- good stuff and some type of redemption for Bollinger at least. Then, of course, the Dean stood up to make his introduction, "his Excellency, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Which was received with applause lasting nearly a minute. Makes you want to shake the assholes that were in the audience ... didn't they listen to the President of Columbia? Didn't then take on board what is beyond mere allegations?

A-jad started his speech with a rebuke to the scolding given by Bollinger, saying that it was insulting to be spoken about in that way. He said that Bollinger's remarks were the result of pressure by the unfriendly press and politicians. But he did not address Bollinger's accusations directly -- at all. Only when asked directly about certain matters did he skirt around the issue, and in particular he deflected whether he called for the eradication of Israel by bringing in the need to Palestinians to be considered in the matter. Hardly encouraging. They voted for Hamas.

Addressing the Holocaust, A-jad stated that he simply wanted more research to be done on the subject and that the issue was abused by Israel to justify the mistreatment of the Palestinians. Note to Iran: if you are so concerned about Palestine and its inhabitants, then why don't you offer them a home in the vast expanses of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Bollinger attacked, "when you come to a place like this, it makes you simply ridiculous. The truth is that the Holocaust in the most documented event in human history.

When asked about the execution of homosexuals in Iran, A-jad claimed that, "in Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Say what? The audience laughed in his face, to which he asserted, "in Iran we don't have this phenomenon, I don't know who told you this."

On the topic of nuclear weapons, he asked why the US was allowed to develop nuclear weapons capabilities, but Iran was not so allowed ... "you have that right and we don't?" A-jad ... I think the reason for that would be obvious. He threaded Koranic quotes together with criticism of Boosh, past presidents and America's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A-jad held out the illusion of peace: "if the US government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends." Hmmmm.

Ivy Losers

In the United States, we have a select group of prestigious colleges and universities called "the Ivy League." Presumably, that was in reference to the ivy growing up the brick walls of the buildings, all evoking some sort of social elitism and academic excellence. The League part being a reference to an athletic conference -- the toffs only play with other toffs. Actually, they'd be slaughtered by even second rate state colleges and universities in common sports such as baseball and American football.

But there is something very, very wrong about assuming that these institutions are bastions of common sense or that they stand for freedom of intellect. You see, they are the very antithesis of democracy and freedom of expression or thought -- they are (collectively) Ground Zero for liberal orthodoxy: think the way we do, or else. They are also breeding grounds for actions and politics so beyond the pale in terms of reality, that it beggars belief. Astoundingly, corporations and industry continue to regard the products of these institutions as the most valuable, and competitively bid for their services (nobody was ever fired for buying IBM ... but the trouble here is the IBM of yore has become the biohazard of today).

Star Simpson (20 y/o or so), a sophomore studying electrical engineering at MIT created an interesting t/sweat-shirt with circuit boards, flashing LEDs, batteries and wires ...leading to a handfull of play-doh (putty-like goop).

She did this to stand out during some type of campus recruiting event. She then thought that she would go to Logan Airport and wait for her 42 year old boyfriend. She went to the information booth where, upon seeing the device on her t/sweat-shirt, she was asked by the airport employee what it was. Rather than saying what it was, she merely said, "art." Now, Logan Airport was the airport from which two of the 9/11 planes departed, and if anything, people at Logan should be sensitive to the threat of terrorism. But look at a picture of Star ... you cannot just dismiss this person as a common whacko. A security agent would be justified in being a tad concerned see this person wearing a device like that at the best of times, and completely within their rights blow this person away -- just on the face of it -- when seeing this person at a security sensitive zone such as an airport. Had this been in Europe, she would likely be dead. As it was, she was challenged by the State Police and managed to to avoid being shot to death by following instructions to the letter ... a false move and she would have been in the morgue.

Boston earlier this year was subject to the ministrations of two other performance artists, and they planted electronic devices all over the city for a publicity stunt and then filmed the chaos. The corporation which sponsored it paid huge fines to make the criminal liability go away. Star Simpson, is a student at one of the most elite universities on the face of the planet. You simply cannot attend MIT unless you are basically a certifiable genius -- or so everyone would tell you. So where is the genius here? Are you going to tell me that someone attending Northwest/ Southeast Tech would do this? Some community college sot post kegger would balk at this type of hubris. But Star gets $750 bail and her friends bemoan the "idiots that can't tell LEDs when they see them." And, "she's a performance artist and marches to the beat of her own drum." I don't care if she is the frikkin Pope. Only in Boston would she walk. Only in Boston would her Homies in academia stand up for this shit.

The net of this is that almost any excess can be excused if committed by politically liberal persons, and these kids, the "best and brightest" from all over the world have a sense of entitlement that is breathtaking. Boston, having a handful of these institutions has to bear the brunt of their actions and thinking. We, the hoi palloi, the great unwashed, simply are not smart enough to understand.

Ok, I hear you thinking that "one idiot does not a hotbed of idiots make ...." Wrong. The whole lot of these Ivy League places are stuffed to the rafters with self-absorbed idiots and hypocrites: Columbia University has decided to give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a platform to speak from. Oh, great ... they are supporting free speech! Not exactly. You see when they issued the invitation to Ahmadinejad, they issued an invitation to the head of state of a government that is actively supporting the anti-American insurgency -- that supplies guns, training and supplies to people who kill Americans. The same butt-head is also on record of saying -- recently -- that Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust did not happen. Some of Butt-head's minions were just killed when they screwed up the installation of a chemical warhead on a Scud missile -- the target of which was undoubtedly Israel. Butt-head governs a country that just executed two men for having homosexual relations -- their sole "crime." Butt-head was part of his country's homegrown Islamic-style KGB, responsible for eliminating those who did not accept his form of Allah-worship. The ROTC cannot come to campus because of the military's policy to gay men, but Columbia invites someone with a simpler policy towards gay men, he shoots them. A double standard?

So when cornered, the Dean at Columbia said that all this is why they wanted to get A-jadhole to speak at Columbia, to be subject to questions and discourse from its students. But it turns out that it won't work that way. Columbia students may submit written questions and some higher academic (Boosh-hating) authority will determine which questions are asked and in what order. Hmmm.... Really, Columbia and all the other far-left universities will invite anyone or do anything that might make Boosh and America look bad. That is political orthodoxy today. Asked whether by that token Columbia would invite Hitler, the President of Columbia said that if they could engage him in debate and get real answers, they would. However, the same bunch of hypocrites chased off of the stage and refused to provide security to an American who wanted to talk about border security and illegal immigration. Sorry, no forum for that.

There is not much difference between the Ivy League institutions -- your thought is valid only inasmuch as it fits with their thought, and of course, if you hate Boosh. No matter how insane, no matter how much it might hurt America, if you identify as an orthodox liberal, you can have the stage at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Columbia, etc. If you speak for reason, for the right of persons to have differences of opinion, religion, or the mere right to live (Israel), you are a class enemy.


Perhaps if people stopped hiring their graduates that might change. Nothing stops a liberal quicker than the prospect of having to pay their own way.

Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero

The NYPD made the decision yesterday to bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero where he wanted to lay a wreath. The reason for the rejection was that the site is closed while construction continues on the "Freedom Tower."

But things are a tad more political than that.... Romney stated that, "[his] request is shocking audacious and should be met with a vehement no. It is inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero." Rudy was out in a similar way, "outrageous." Hillary said that it was "unacceptable."


I would let him go. That is not defiling the memories of the attack -- it showing one of the supporters of the people that executed the attack the results. Even if you have never worked there, it is a powerful place to go: and see the hole in the ground side by side with pictures of what was there. There is just this weird vibe about the place, surrounded by tall buildings, knowing that the WTC dwarfed them all. Also the vibe is ... well ... spooky. Seriously so. It might, just might, give A-jad a taste of the wrath that will befall his nation if he messes with us once too many times. Not that we would attack Tehran in the same way, but the resolve with which we rebuild shows that we will not forget or forgive.

And if he so much as utters a word, tries to make a speech or political statement, simply withdraw the security cordon that surrounds him and let New Yorkers take care of matters. Make that perfectly clear to him right up front -- set up a press conference to outline the rules and invite Al Jazeera to it. And if A-jad screws up ... well that would be just to damn bad.



The site should be a world-site, free for all to come and mourn, a testament and warning of the evil that men to do each other. A site for moral review, not politics.

Chemically challenged?

I hesitated to write about this yesterday -- I only saw reporting of it on Fox ... and, well, it was Fox.... However, various European news agencies have picked up on it, so here goes:

From Jane's Defence Weekly.

It appears that Syria is looking for the trifecta of military problems. In July the Syrians were working with some of their cronies -- Iranian "advisers" -- to mount a chemical warhead on a SCUD missile, when a tiny mishap occurred. That little accident resulted in the fuel for a missile catching fire causing it to explode. The explosion released a cloud of VX and Sarin nerve agents as well as mustard gas.

The July 26 explosion was initially reported as killing 15 Syrian military personnel and injuring about 50 others -- as a result of "very handling explosive products." Of course, the Syrians made no mention of the Iranians also killed in the blast. But Jane's being the insider organization that it is, pieced together the info that Iranians were working at the facility as a part of a 2005 agreement. And they were trying to weaponize the 300 mile SCUD. The effort was part of a deal to accept Iranian help in constructing 5 facilities to produce chemical weapons -- a long term project set into motion in the 1970's.

But let us consider this a moment: how is it possible that the explosion of a single rocket warhead or its fuel could set off a chain reaction? Could it mean that the Syrians are stupid enough to conduct testing of rockets in the same facility as they store chemical warheads? It is unthinkable that they could have the warheads and rockets anywhere near each other, unless it was time to pop them off at someone. And if they had a cocktail of gases and agents (some of which are binary in the US arsenal) lying around, it speaks to a level of idiocy that is hard to comprehend. What do they have, a building with a bunch of warheads of different types lying around, while Ahmed and Parvis tinker with some advanced rocket components? "No, you fool! I want the hammer, not the allen wrench!"

Could some of these things be as a result of taking delivery of someone else's WMDs and shoving them in a storehouse, without really knowing what was inside them? Even the Syrians have to know better when developing chemical warheads to be a bit more careful?

And even more frightening, if I were living in Israel, I'd consider investing in decon suits, really good bio-hazard clothing and perhaps even a positive pressure bunker for my basement. VX gas .... From Wikipedia:

VX is one of the most toxic nerve agents ever synthesized.^[1] The VX nerve agent is the most well-known of the V-series of nerve agents.

The only countries known to possess VX are the United States and Russia^[1]. However, under Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq was suspected of buying VX^[1]; a Sudanese pharmaceutical facility was bombed by the U.S. in 1998 following allegations that it in some way used VX and that the origin of the agent was associated with both Iraq and Al Qaeda.^[2]

VX agent is considered an area denial weapon due to its physical properties.

With its high viscosity and low volatility, VX has the texture and feel of high-grade motor oil. This makes it especially dangerous, as it has a high persistence in the environment. It is odourless and tasteless, and can be distributed as a liquid or, through evaporation, into small amounts of vapour. It works as a nerve agent by blocking the function of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. Normally, an electric nerve pulse would cause the release of acetylcholine over a synapse that would stimulate muscle contraction. The acetylcholine is then broken down to non-reactive substances (acetic acid and choline) by the acetylcholinesterase enzyme. If more muscle tension is needed the nerve must release more acetylcholine. VX blocks the action of acetylcholinesterase, thus resulting in sustained contractions of all the muscles in the body. Sustained contraction of the diaphragm muscle causes death by asphyxiation.

The lethal dose for an average human is estimated to be about 200 micrograms, depending on the method of incorporation. If the absorbed dose is not too high, death can be avoided if the appropriate antidote is injected immediately after exposure.

Ok, that is more than you wanted to know -- but get this: the lethal dose is a tiny droplet or vapor, anywhere on the skin or inhaled. Death is by muscular spasm -- body cramp. Painful, but quick. Both Russia and the U.S. have programs to get rid of the stuff. Saddam admitted to the UNSCOM that Iraq had researched VX, but denied weaponizing it. Subsequent to 2003's invasion, the U.S. learned that Iraq had in fact succeeded in dropping three VX bombs on Iran during their war.

And here we are with VX in Syria. Am I the only one to find this strange? Where did it come from? Hopefully the explosions killed everyone involved in the project with Iran, even though their demise must have been awful.

Syria gets caught

Well, maybe not "caught" but most certainly "caught out." Intelligence pundits have long been speculating that Syria was the home of Iraq's WMDs and almost certainly the source of the weapons headed to Hezbollah from Iran. Also, the largest transit point for jihadis headed to Iraq to blow themselves up. A general pain in the ass, in other words.

Less well known is that Syria was working with the North Koreans -- North Korean personnel were known to have been in Damascus working to give the Syrian SCUD fleet extra range with which to blow Israelis to their makers. Now, it turns out, Israel was keeping tabs on certain North Korean flagged vessels that miraculously changed flags to South Korea in transit -- vessels that docked in June on the Syrian coast. While I am surprised that Israel did not arrange for an accident in transit ... say an unaccountable sinking ... it does appear that Israel managed to keep tabs on the actual material being shipped. Pretty damn brave, if you ask me, but it looks like it paid off.

On September 6, reports the London Times, Israeli F-15s crossed the Syrian coastline inbound. Somehow, the air defenses went down (I am sure that the poor sum-bitch on duty is presently dangling by his privates while Bashir Asaad examines him closely with a cattle prod) and the Israeli jets rendezvous'd with commandos waiting to paint their targets with lasers. This particular target was a large underground depot. Syrians and other sources initially misdirected the media with implications that the depot was a weapons cache for Hezbollah.

Now it appears that AQ Khan, the architect of the Paki-bomb may have been involved. And, of course, the North Koreans. Was the cache nuclear material that Assad was hiding for the North Koreans? Was it material bound for Iran? Was it a do-it-yourself for Syria courtesy of North Korea? Syria was alerted by the Russians last month that the Israelis might be planning an attack (thanks Putin, you asshole), but the Syrians beefed up the Golan Heights. The ship supposedly offloaded cargo labeled "cement", but I doubt that Israel would take the time to bomb cement.

Syrian passengers have been noted on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and on the trains out of North Korea to China. Syria is also known to have been the trans-shipment place for more than $100 million worth of missile components from North Korea to Iran. Syrian owns somewhere between 60-120 SCUD-C missiles -- all sourced from North Korea and which the Koreans have been trying to extend the 300 mile range. This means that the deserts of northeastern Syria can be used to base missiles and still hit Israel. This is also the site of the Israeli strike. Hezbollah? Doesn't look like it.

Iran's Ahmadinejad sent his nephew to assess the damage in Syria. And as the Times points out, Syrian air defenses are a lot stronger than Iranian systems. And the Israelis blew in, blew up and blew out. No losses. Syria is not a bunch of rag-heads holed up in bombed out buildings sharing food with the rats (Hezbollah's preferred residence) -- it is a modern military state with easily definable targets and Israel proved once again that it is more than a match for that type of combat.

In passing, we need to note that Russia and China jumped all over France for telling the West that they needed to prepare for war. Ahmadinecrazy predictably called France an American stooge -- not that anyone seriously can believe that one, even in the Middle East. What I don't "get" is this: Russia and China have large Muslim populations currently within their borders. Russia may even have its eyes on reclaiming some of its break-away nations to recreate a larger Soviet Union. All these lands are chock-a-block with wild-eyed, crazy, die-for-Allah types.... Why on Earth are they supporting the Iranians? Just for the short-term goal of messing with the US of A (and allies with similar interests)? Muslims look on the godless of all stripes with about the same hatred. Just look at the Chechens. Not exactly Moscow-friendly. Now give them nukes. The Chechens would use them. No doubt.

None of this is any good. None of it.

Next: Hillarycare Part Two. Or how to make everyone pay.

"He wasn't his eye-popping best..."

So sayeth Cameron Morfit of Golf Magazine.

Cameron, you are an idiot.

Only 8 strokes clear of the pack, three strokes shy of an all time record PGA tournament score,
playing for $10 million, 64-63-64-66. -23 total. Cameron, just what exactly were you looking for? What would have satisfied you? Are you another one of the "Tiger really isn't that good on a day to day basis" hacks?

Instead of hammering drives down to the green, he laid up with irons and 3 woods to leave himself with 150 yards to the pin. Time and again. And for Tiger, that might as well be a chip from off of the green. Smart play which leads to birdies and outrageous runs against par.

Sure the course was soft due to rains and August heat taking a toll on the greens. So it became a dart board for the better players. That only serves to show how scary it can be for pros trying to chase Tiger.

You want eye-popping? Try that moron OJ Simpson getting arrested for a B&E with some buddies carrying guns in Las Vegas. THAT is eye-popping. It takes stupidity to a new level. But that really should not surprise us. Really.

The Bear Stirs

Listen up, Euro-weenies: that friendly Slavic nation to your East from which you are buying your gas energy doe not have your best interests at heart. The enemy is not a bunch of pathetic morons in Washington, D.C., but rather a group of extremely intelligent and nasty ex-spies in the Kremlin.

Let's examine the past few years in Russia. Freedom of the media has been effectively squashed. Institutionalized bribery is again the method of doing business favored by the Kremlin. Dissent results in Bulgarian-like executions abroad using rare and nasty substances. Clients for Gazprom who are too vocal in their dissent from Russian political goals find their supplies cut off or at least the threat is made. Clearly and unequivocally.

Militarily (the Russians were always very keen to support their military, lest a coup backfire on them and all the better to threaten your neighbors with), the Russians have begun flexing their muscles in a way not seen since ... Chernenko, an acolyte of Brezhnev. For reasons best known to the Russians, they have recommenced long range bomber patrols -- over "their shipping lanes" (huh? ... the only export of any note is energy -- mostly by pipeline). Fleets of subs long laid up are being refurbished and new sub designs are apparently being rushed into production. Bombers long grounded for lack of fuel, are now sucking down tankloads as though it was going out of style. The just exploded the "Father of all Bombs", some type of thermobaric device ... on 9/11. It is reputedly 4 times as strong as the MOAB used by the US and produces twice the thermal intensity. The closest thing to a nuke without using one. Perfect for erasing villages full of Chechens from the map. Enemy troop concentrations too -- like Ukranian troops, or Polish troops. New tank designs with cutting edge armour are rolling off the design boards into production. New fighters to equal the best of U.S. designs are in testing.

Why? Whent he chips were down, did anyone mess with them? Did anyone take any territory that was Russian? Sure, lots of SSRs decided to go it alone without Moscow stealing all their resources, but we are talking about the 'Stans and Ukrainians -- emphatically not Russians, and only Russian by force of arms since various despots in the Kremlin decided to make them "Russian."

And the people running Russia are effectively a very intelligent and organized mafia. Not THE Russian Mafia, but the people who ran the place since Felix Dzerzhinsky, excepting Stalin: the Checka /KGB / FSB. The Soviets had one KGBer for every 425 citizens. The FSB has one for every 297. The KGB was a state within the state, the FSB is the state. FSB personnel (former KGB) essentially own every important industry that has not been re-nationalized. Those who made it big during the Yeltsin years are either dead or in exile abroad, fearing for their lives (unless they have paid tribute). Similar to the KGB, the FSB may infringe any right you might think you have as a Russian citizen. They have their own prison system (although they don't really need it as their power is greater than the KGB's ever was), and control the Duma absolutely.

What do they want? Tough one, that. Russia will be depopulated within 50 years, effectively unable to provide enough personnel to run even the most basic industries, or feed the rest of them. And the population growth rate continues to accelerate deeper into the red. So with the money being squandered on the military to mean anything, we have got to believe that the intention is conquest. Own enough "other" people to preserve the Russian people. There is certainly no possible need for the arms build out we are seeing today, at least for domestic purposes ... assuming "domestic" means the Russian Federation territory as it exists today. If "domestic" means all the SSRs that flew the coop to become "republics" (actually many nasty little dictatorships), then FOABs, bombers, tanks and attack aircraft might have some purpose. The external shows of power designed to warn the U.S. and U.K. to mind their own f-ing business, thank you.

Or, something darker. While the U.S. is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of rag-heads, a rejuvenated Russian army sweeps in for a slice of the Iranian oil fields. This time, I think we can safely say that they would not make the Afghanistan mistake: they have never really had any qualms, are not afraid of getting nuked by an Islamic nation, so they will simply flatten what they need to to secure their gains.

And let's not forget the Europeans ... or the Chinese. The Chinese might -- at some point -- decide that Siberian oil is simply too close and abundant for the Russians to use as a piggy bank for funding their own needs. And there are a lot of Chinese. Well equipped and flush with stolen and bought Western technology. I understand that the latest Chinese littoral subs are excellent. And with little effort I suppose that they might be able to secure the latest in armour technologies. And there are a lot of them, did I mention that?

Net of all this? The Bear was just sleeping. We cannot afford to have some idiot liberal democrat in the White House who believes that we "just need to understand each other and love each other" (those words from arch-moron Doofus Patrick on 9/11 at a memorial service for the fallen). Believe it or not, there are people in the world who want us dead. Just because we exist. That may just include the inhabitants of the Kremlin along with the usual unwashed suspects.

Dignity

Death. What exactly is dignified about death? Nothing really. Passing from this plane of existence to the next. Sometimes peacefully. Sometimes violently. Sometimes willingly. Sometimes kicking and screaming. But nothing dignified -- sorry. It's death, pure and simple.

Two members of my extended family have been facing death by cancer now for a good six months or more. One chose to end her life through euthanasia and the other joked, "next time you see me, I'll be all dressed up" to one of his life-long friends that came to visit. She died in her bed at home, helped through the barrier to the next stage by the administration of drugs that ended her life -- courtesy of a doctor. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands. He is currently in a hospice, pumped full of advanced pain management medication. He is not exactly pain-free or enjoying it, but seeing friends and family and more or less cheerfully waiting for death to come to him. He has embraced the fact that nothing is going to save him, but still won't miss whatever days he las left.

She never had a family beyond those she was born with and those relatives that were born to extended members of her family. Me, for instance. He had three children, two of which have children of their own. His extended family numbers in the 20's or 30's. Maybe more, if in-laws are included. Both worked hard all their lives, extremely hard.

Both made early life choices, the results of which they carry/carried with them to the edge of their lives. Those choices were many and long reaching -- she traveled the world and saw and did things that he would not have believed possible, he was an elevator technician. She was jilted in love, and he was blessed. Both had many friends and were active as friends and members of the community.

But, what really separates them is something else: the nature of the spirit that they will leave behind. She turned inwards and ultimately rejected the one thing that provided him with the support to face the horror of his situation ... family. You don't have to like your family, but they are yours. Strange, but when you look around the world, the tie that still binds us the most is family. True, you can see ideologues going to their demise in a fit of fervor over Allah, Jesus, Marx, the neighbor's dog ... whatever. But the thing that people will most willingly fight to the death over is family. Our pack. Our nucleus which provides support in the vast tempest of life.

It is not just our culture, it is universal. Where family life has died, so too, has the essential fabric of that society. Where the life of one of your clan becomes a by-product of the societal existence, so too does your own future become diminished. Think of the great experiments of socialism and communism -- failures of family. You cannot replace family with the state: the state really does not care and never will. The state is incapable of feeling the bond of family and will ultimately leave you in the lurch, whereas a family member will support you to the death even when you are wrong. Because you are family. Is it possible to have family without DNA relationships? Yes, I guess so. But show me where this has worked in the long-term -- multi-generational -- without inevitable DNA binding. You can't.

Family means love. Let's not confuse kindness and considerate behavior with love. It isn't. Your doctor does not love you. The state does not love you. Maybe Jesus or Allah does, I don't know -- only you can know that. Friends may love you, and at some point they transcend the essential DNA ties and become family, but....

And as we all know, without love, mankind is doomed.

Do it with dignity

Smug in Academia

I have just left the dinner part of one of my dearest friends -- the trouble is, there was another guest there who tried to end an argument with "well at [blank University] I have five scientists who reliably inform me that the science is irrefutable that global warming exists and that we humans have a great deal to do with it." The guy is at a sub-school of the Uni wholly unrelated to any credible scientific endeavor. Upon probing, personal knowledge of the issues: nil. Avoiding the temptation to tell him that he was a liberal tool and full of shit, I decided to preserve the peace at the dinner party. Probably my marriage too.

For the record: I advocate the replacement of fossil fuels with re-usable energy sources. It is simply prudent, not only for political reasons but for ecological health. I advocate breaking the trend to global monopolies (or cartels) ... competition is good. I advocate taxes on current fossil fuels to wean us off of them. I advocate eliminating all personal vehicles getting less than 25 mpg. Wind energy is necessary. Nuclear energy may be necessary in the intermediate term. We should let the Iraqis get on with it (but not permit chaos). We should not attack Iran. We should be genuinely scared of Pakistan. OK? Enough? So let's get to reality and global warming.

Hmmm. Goebbels reliably informed the world that Jews were the cause of all their troubles. Scientists reliably informed the European aristocracy that the world was flat. The Pope will inform you that he is Christ's representative on Earth. Atoms were the smallest particles in the universe. Doctors reliably informed the world that disease had been conquered with the new forms of antibiotics then becoming available (circa 1960). Bill Gates knew that 640K was more than anyone would ever need. Boosh knew there were WMDs. These things were CERTAIN. How many other things that have been held as truths have turned out to be anything but? How often have we been told by our media that various things were at a crisis -- only to see the media creep away without correcting themselves when nothing happened.

Just because one might be politically savvy enough to succeed at maintaining one's position at some hype-liberal institution does not of itself cast any authority onto your opinions or those of anyone at your institution: science is NOT politics (notwithstanding "political science"). Science consists of hypotheses which can be subject to proof at least to some testing with rigor. Al Gore has been challenged to open debate by a host of scientists on the issue of global warming. He has yet -- and nobody on the Global Warming bandwagon has either -- to accept Monckton's open challenge. Why? Because the science the panic merchants use is junk. It makes great copy, and furthers political goals of anti-capitalist, anti-globalization leftists. They'd like to see us doing what exactly? Shivering in adobe huts? Or perhaps listening to THEIR ideas.

Global warming is a hypothesis and not a truth. When will the media and others finally "get" that? Everyone is up in arms about melting glaciers. Yes, it is happening -- but ice mass may be increasing globally. Most of the other "certains" associated with global warming are proving to be anything but certain. The rates at which we are all meant to cook or go swimming constantly get reduced or adjusted ... "but it will happen." Puh-leeze. If we knew more -- truly knew more -- then we'd have something to hang our hats on and make determinations regarding our environment. But hysteria such as the drivel proposed by Al Gore is just disgusting and those that stand by it, less than intellectually honest. Of course, since when are those people honest ... ask Larry Summers.

So instead of smugly insisting you know you are right because you are right (very playground), try educating yourself on the SCIENCE of the other side of this non-debate.

READ: (just the tip of a rather large list)

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

Monckton summary of 4th final 2-1-07.doc the most authoritative debunking out there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.junkscience.com/ lots of good articles and links

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2

http://www.canadafreepress.com/global-warming.htm some very pointed articles

http://www.panicwatch.org/index.html

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/environment/index.asp?snav=en

There are tons of links and other tid-bits of information on which you can spend weeks of surfing time.

I am not "RIGHT" and do not pretend that only I know the right answers and Mr. [blank] University knows only the wrong answers. Far from it. But I do know that science cannot and should not be assigned to the rubbish heap of expedience for political goals and political orthodoxy (Larry Summers refused the orthodoxy and got fired, but at least he was honest)

Global warming may in fact be real. Or it might not. We might have something to do with it, if it exists, and then we might have negligible impact no matter what. We are not even CLOSE to resolution on that score. If you pretend to have an interest in the subject, then learn BOTH sides of the story or you risk coming out looking like an arrogant, blustering windbag. And when anyone states that a subject so complex and ill-understood is unequivocally closed, that person merely shows that they are are narrow minded and probably not worth the breath it takes to debunk. Hence I chose to preserve the peace.

Roads suck

Why is it that roads in Germany are so good and roads in the Northeast of the US are so bad? You can't run that "its the climate" merde by me on this one, as German weather is worse. Of course the Germans complain about potholes too, but it strikes me that the only Germans that have seen real potholes are the ones that made a trip East in the early 1940's.

Seriously, even the repairs made to the roads here are pathetic. Where does our money go? Does everyone (in the road repair business) cheat on the amount of fill going into repairs? Does the Mass Highways staff pave their own driveways early in the orning when nobody is looking? How is it possible?

For all my ass-aching about the Massachusetts roads, I spent the weekend down in New York City. 'Nuff said. You KNOW that someone is stealing there -- probably with lots of vowels in their surnames, too. OR perhaps a "Mc". Reminds me of London: whenever there is a hideous traffic jam in London, it is almost always the result of road works. When you eventually get to the point of congestion, there would inevitably be a few machines lying around with "Murphy" painted on the sides. And absolutely nobody to be seen engaged in anything that remotely resembles labor. Sort of like Massachusetts cops on "work detail." What the hell is that, exactly? I mean, they get paid overtime (or double time) to man the position, and then they stand there chatting with the people who are meant to be expeditiously completing our much-needed road works. OR they sit in their cruisers eating Dunkin Donuts. And that is NOT a cliche. Meanwhile, the tax payer gets fleeced for substandard work and overtime for the plod.

Jeez.