Rusted Sky

So I haven't been posting much. Unfortunately, I've run across "Digg.Com" - and it's not at all unfair to say that it's sucking up a lot of my non-work computer time.

I'm also trying to synch my phone to my PC. Through a SERIAL port, of all things. No USB, simply serial. Wow. And it's a new phone, too. Samsung T209...

More tomorrow...

J.

EO Newsroom: New Images - The Top of the Atmosphere

Atmospheric gases scatter blue wavelengths of visible light more than other wavelengths, giving the Earth’s visible edge a blue halo. At higher and higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes so thin that it essentially ceases to exist. Gradually, the atmospheric halo fades into the blackness of space. This astronaut photograph captured on July 20, 2006, shows a nearly translucent moon emerging from behind the halo.

Enjoy!

J.

Migros: First Supermarket with 100% LED Lighting (TreeHugger)

The Migros Supermarket in Eschenbach, Switzerland, sets an LED milestone by switching to 100% LED lighting throughout the entire store--in the refrigerated compartments, overhead, and accenting the selection of products on offer. This project demonstrates once again the ecological superiority of the LED technology. Migros expects to sink energy use 80%, including lower air conditioning costs due to the low waste heat generation of light emitting diodes. "How many Migros technicians does it take to change a light bulb?" None for the next 16 years! That's 50,000 hours of light, compared to 1,000 hours for an old-fashioned filament lightbulb. In addition to the waste reduction achieved by this long life-span, LEDs do not use harmful mercury nor lead. And there is one last, perhaps less obvious, advantage to LED lighting in a supermarket: LEDs emit no ultraviolet nor infrared light, minimizing spoilage of foodstuffs. According to the Osram case study: "Among light experts worldwide, the project is regarded as being unique, and blazes the trail into the LED future."

What will happen when/if the LED bulb reaches an affordable price point, and people swap out incandescents (which last 1000 hours) and CF bulbs (which last 8000 hours or so) for these? What will happen when the market gets saturated?

Just a thought...

J.

The Georgia Lottery MegaMillions game payout is up to about $355 million as of today. Figure the IRS is going to get about half that, it still leaves $167 million or so, lump sum.

What would you DO with that much money?

There's a saying that "Who the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Well, judging from the actions of certain stars and starlets, they also throw a lot of money at folks and watch them self destruct. If it isn't drink, it's drugs - if it isn't drugs, relationships go out the window in record time.

Of course, folks who gain fame and fortune in Hollywood aren't the only ones with problems like that. In fact, there's plenty of apocryphal stories about how lottery winners usually end up broke again pretty fast. Start out in a trailer, win a heap of money, and end up in the trailer again in short order... it's almost enough to make you not want to buy a ticket - you might win and completely screw over your life!

And then you've got to figure that the chances of actually winning are on a par with getting hit by lightning AND a meteorite on the same day - pretty darn scarce. So why even try at all?

Well, for the entertainment value, of course! Didn't you ever dream about what you could do with a few million, or a hundred million or so?

Knowing full well my chances of winning the lottery are indeed about even with getting hit by lightning and a meteorite, here's my initial list of what I'd do if I won.

1. Establish trust funds for family members who could use it.

2. Got some friends who could use a hand up, they'd get some assistance. (Overt or covert, hard to tell which might be most appropriate...)

3. The church we used to go to, Hollydale Methodist, could use a hand.

4. Prepay the little guy's tuition for the next 5 years (that'd get him up to 8th grade)

5. Talk to the school to see about tuition assistance for those that could use it. (And they could use a bit of assistance in locating an affordable HS site - maybe some extra money would help there.)

6. Pay off the house.

7. Revamp the plumbing, wiring and air conditioning systems. (Yeah, it'd be great to get an ego mansion, but I REALLY hate moving, so why?) Oh, a new driveway would be nice, too.

8. Talk to Soldier's Angels, UMCOR, the USO and the Red Cross. Afghan and Iraq charaties would get some dough.

9. Look at some microcap investing - a little money goes a LONG way towards helping people bootstrap themselves to a better life. (Afghani and Iraqi microcaps especially, also India and Bangaladesh...)

10. Set up an office/LLC to handle the investments. (And, incidentally, provide employment/benefits for some folks I know who could use it, and provide a place to go during the day...)

11. Buy She Who Deserves It the car she wants - fully loaded.

12. Get a lawn service to take care of the yard.

13. Get maid service weekly.

14. Buy two new pallet jacks for the shop - then QUIT without two weeks notice! BWAHAHAHA!

15. Put about $20 mil in savings - at 4.5% that'd be $900k/year. If all else fails, we might be able to get by on that until social security and my AF Reserve pension kick in...

Of course, She Who Must Be Consulted would have her own priorities/ideas - but this would do for a start. And Mother and Father wouldn't have to worry about anything financial for the rest of their lives. As far as work and school goes, I'd actually want to disrupt our current schedule/life as little as possible, because I think it important that the little guy get a good education, learn to WORK for his living and NOT think his life is going to be real easy because he can tap the family fortune. (Paris Hilton won't be held up as a role model, except in a negative way!)

Yeah, it's fun to think about - and wouldn't it be nuts if I really won?

J.

Okay, I ain't feeling the sincerity here.

BREITBART.COM - Edwards: Jesus Would Be 'Appalled'

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Edwards Home County's Largest

Edwards Home County's Largest
The 28,200-square-foot home also Orange County's most valuable

By Don Carrington
January 26, 2007

CJ photo by Don Carrington

The 28,200-square-foot Edwards home in Orange County is expected to be valued at more than $6 million.RALEIGH — Presidential candidate John Edwards and his family recently moved into what county tax officials say is the most valuable home in Orange County. The house, which includes a recreational building attached to the main living quarters, also is probably the largest in the county.

“The Edwardses’ residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the county,” Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told Carolina Journal. He estimated that the tax value will exceed $6 million when the facility is completed.

Gah. Posturing and preening, trying to set themselves up as America's... what? Saviours? Royalty?

All I'm seeing is an empty drum, echoing whatever the interviewer's views are. If he were being interviewed by someone with a religious dislike, he'd be putting in digs against religion. But you can trust him, after all - he's a Democrat!

J.

I'm looking at the results of the Scooter Libby trial, and shaking my head. I just don't get it.

He's apparently guilty of obstructing justice... because he says he can't remember where he heard Plame was CIA.

I'm wondering - is there any information, anywhere, that points to Valerie Plame being a person who's name shouldn't have been released? Just working for the CIA is insufficent, to my way of thinking, to indicate she's a secret agent.

If she WASN'T a secret agent - then what's the point of all this? Scooter Libby mentioned he knew she worked at the CIA, and was told that by someone. However, he doesn't remember who. Okay, this is sufficient to indict him, go through a trial, and then sentence him for perjury because he can't remember who told him this little factoid?

Now, this 'leakage' of the name of Plame supposedly is in response to Joe Wilson's leakage of information on his trip to Niger, where he says he didn't find any indication of Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium. Except... apparently he reported to the CIA that they WERE trying to buy the stuff.

So - did Joe Wilson lie to the CIA? Or the NYTimes? Or the Washington Post?

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

And what about his leak? Was the information he leaked classified or unclassified? If it WAS Classified, what's he still doing walking around free? If it WASN'T classified, then which is the valid report - that they were or were not trying to buy uranium?

'Tis puzzling, to be sure. But it does tend to show just how messed up things are in Washington, when someone who can't remember who he heard the name of a CIA employee from gets put under a proctoscope, and someone like Sandy Berger can stuff classified documents down his pants and get away with a cursory trial and a slap on the wrist. There's something seriously wrong inside the Beltway as far as priorities go.

J.

Well, that's what it boils down to. Set a date we'll be gone by, with milestones the Iraqi government must meet or we'll pull out earlier.

Gee, why don't we just surrender now? Cut loose the Iraqi government to sink or swim?

By the way, have you noticed something rather peculiar? A quick glance at the headlines...

MSNBC at 11:35 PM - one story on Iraq - "Making Peace With Iraqi Death Squads". "Weekend Strokes Have Higher Mortality Rate" is placed above it.

FoxNews - Former Soviet Nation to Double Troops In Iraq. rates a small line entry, while Woman Living with Dead Roomate gets a headline.

Drudgereport - There's an entry about the Dem's plan to pull out - but nothing else.

No disaster, no car-bombs, no mention of the surge... nothing.

What's odd about this picture?

J.

Indian cow eats more chicken - CNN.com

I blame Chik-Fil-A Advertising... But I didn't know they were branching out to India, or that the cows would take things so... literally.

J.

What's wrong with this picture?

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' | International News | News | Telegraph

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased due to the efforts of conservationists

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.

The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

J.

My Way News - Unemployment Rate Drops to 4.5 Percent

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.5 percent in February even as big losses of construction and factory jobs restrained overall payroll growth. Wages grew briskly.
The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, offered a somewhat mixed picture of the employment climate.
The slight decline in the politically prominent jobless rate, from 4.6 percent in January, came as hundreds of thousand of people left the work force for various reasons.

But worldwide...

BREITBART.COM - US trade deficit shrinks to 59.1 billion dollars

The US trade deficit narrowed 3.8 percent in January to 59.1 billion dollars thanks to record-breaking export growth, the Commerce Department said Friday.
It was a bigger drop than expected on Wall Street, where analysts saw a deficit of 60.0 billion dollars, and marked the steepest change in the trade figure since October.

J.

The attentions of some folks who are trying to persuade me down in Rusted Sky: This has GOT to be the best Anti-9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking Site... that it WAS done by the government. So far, however, I ain't buying it.

Let me give you some examples of the give and take so far.

If the government was not against the United States, why are all of the facts not adding up? Also, why is it when citizens question what exactly happened on September 11th, the government never answers the questions? Not the mention, whenever a government official states anything that could catch Bush and his administration in this huge lie and that they are real terrorists, even if they just put a dint into it, the official gets fired for it?

All these questions are answered in this one statement: No matter how much the government claims that they did not plan the terrorist attacks, they left evidence that proves it and that the Supreme Court would find them guilty and sentenced for life for murder. Bush claims that he is anti-death and he goes around killing his own innocent people most likely for more money because that is all he cares about.

They come up with an idea to write a bogus book to show what great liars they are called the "9/11 Commission Report" and they still get caught by a book called "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". What do we have to do to get through their heads that citizens realize that the U.S. government is the real terrorists behind the attacks and we are just waiting for them to admit it? We must tell them we know they plan the attacks and let them know what they did was incorrect and now widows, children and families are suffering without their loved ones and have to grieve over the death. The cause of the death by an autopsy you might ask?

It is not a fatal plane crash, but Bush and his administration flying other people’s innocent lives into the Twin Towers, "a field in Pennsylvania" and "The Pentagon" when it should have been his own.

Posted by: theusadminturned

Shortly afterward, this post popped into the queue.

I respect your opinion about the government and how it hasn't killed Dylan Avery, but I don't agree that just because they weren't killed, that means that the government is innoccent of all crimes. You are assuming that a man with horrible piolit skills, Honjur, was able to get past the anti-misile system on the most protected building in the United States, the Pentagon. You are also assuming that Al Qaeda would be able to pull off such a scandal leaving evidence that points to the US government. What would their motive be for attacking the largest and most intelligent millitary country in the world? These are questions that need to be asked.

Posted by: Jessica

Jessica -

There's no anti-missile system on the Pentagon. There's also no indication that the US government orchestrated the attacks, aside from some fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists. We DO have good, clear evidence that points to Al Quaeda doing the job, and they publicly and loudly took the credit.

By the way, you seem to think it takes a great deal of piloting skill to find a large city like NY, and find a tall building in it, and ram a plane into it. It doesn't, as anyone with a copy of Flight Simulator can tell you. The hardest thing in flying is landing the plane, and they weren't looking to do that.

What would be their motive? Look at what they published - they hate the US, they hate the West, they hate the modern world, they hate everyone who doesn't believe as they do, they hate any possibility that their culture and beliefs might be questioned or even made fun of... and hate is a VERY strong motivator.

I noticed you're posting from the U of F. (That's where the IP listed in the entry points, University of Western Florida BTW, but I'm not seeing Sitemeter visits from those IP addresses around the times they're posting... J.) - I'd like to caution you that critical thinking does not mean automatic reflexive disbelief, but a careful evaluation of all relevant information on the subject. Credulous belief of secondhand speculation and theorizing that ignores hard facts and hard science is not critical thinking.

J.

I agree with Jessica on what she said about the government not killing Averly but that does not mean that they are innoccent. I disagree with saying that Al Qaeda could pull off this scandal and leave evidence that points to the US government unless the government had paid him to put such a scandal into action. Just because Al Qaeda does not like people who do not share the same faith or anything as he does; does not mean that he would have attacked one of the most powerful countries in the world without a better reason than not sharing the same things as he does.

Posted by: alyne | March 8, 2007 2:05 PM

What evidence pointing to the US government? Paid him to put such a scandal into action? That's an interesting way to put it...

Sorry - but if you think you're going to convince me, you're going to need a LOT of solid evidence. And I don't think you've got it. What I think is, you've been told by someone you trust that these things are true, and you've had no reason to question or investigate them for yourself.

So. Point it out. Use primary sources, because I will NOT accept second or third-hand interpretive speculation, or creative interpretation of photos. Do the research, make your case so bulletproof that I've got no choice BUT to believe. I've gone over a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy sites, though, and it's pretty evident that you've got to go into that sort of stuff WANTING to believe - there's just too many holes otherwise.

It's your job to convince me you're right. Remember, though, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So you'd better have something extraordinary.

By the way, just to warn you, if you put in a bunch of links your comment will get held for approval. Don't worry, I won't let it languish in the spamtrap long.

Hmm. three folks so far from the U of WF according to the IP address. That's pretty extraordinary in itself...

J.

So what do I get next? Sigh...

Then tell me this "Mr. J," have you gone up to the President of the United States and personally interviewed him and asked he what exactly happened on September 11th AND given him a lie detector test of some sort to show proof that it was not planned by him and his administration? I didn't think so.
Have you asked him questions and he has answers them with evidence that is not him? No answer.
It shouldn't matter what my opinion is. What should matter is that the guy that you trust in So much is lying to you and the rest of the country about his wrong doing. I'm surprised that he is not trying to rush out of office by now. Thank God that lying old man is leaving office soon! COUNTDOWN!!!

Posted by: theusadminturned

I normally don't change a user's comments - but I almost made an exception in your case because you're doing a terrible job of convincing me you know anything at all about this.

Look, I'm asking YOU for evidence. Evidence, not arguement. The two are not the same thing, regardless of what you might think. You won't convince me by arguing at me or ranting or changing the subject - you'll convince me with facts. Solid facts, hard facts, information I can verify the authenticity and correctness of.

You're real short on facts and long on emotional ranting - I understand it feels good to you but it's not going to convince me.

You'll have to try harder. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. You've taken on the responsibility of convincing me you're right - I don't have any responsibility to defend MY viewpoints or beliefs.

You, however, are doing a miserable job persuading me that you're in the right on this so far.

J.

Let me make two things very clear, gentle reader. I gladly welcome disagreement and discussion on this site, but you'd better have something to back it up. I'm a skeptic, I'm hard to convince. You don't win points here for personal insults, you don't win points for TYPING IN ALL CAPS or "uzins bad spelin 'n sintax". If you're going to argue the rightness of your opinion, be prepared to back it up with hard information. I won't sign onto something because YOU believe it - I want proof, and even then don't expect me to change my point of view to yours.

(See my point on global warming above. The standard is Global Warming Exists, Man Did It (or contributed), And It's A Bad Thing Which Must Be Stopped By Any Means Necessary. I believe two out of three of the above - yet that is still sufficient to get me pretty much branded a heretic because I won't sign off on the third.)

The SECOND thing is, you'd better be polite about your disagreement. I'm under no obligation to keep your post if I don't think you're being at least minimally polite and respectful. This is my on-line home and I love to have folks drop in, whether you agree with my points or not - but you crap on the board and you'll be gone in short order. I'll tolerate disagreement, but I won't tolerate trolls and I've set the bar pretty low when it comes to deciding if you're edging into trolldom.

If you can't make your points coherently and clearly, without insults or cascading obscenities, without the same sort of language you'd use talking with someone you respected a great deal and didn't want to possibly offend, don't bother posting here.

And don't gripe at me about your right to freedom of speech. I'll just point you at a low-cost, high reliability hosting service and a place where you can get blog software and tell you to go roll your own - or if it's really free speech you're after you can check out Blogger.com.

Now - it'll be interesting to see what the next response will be. Will there be facts? Will there be insults? Will there be possibly information that'll prove what they claim?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm not holding my breath for it.

Update: Another user's chimed in.

It is understandable to believe that if the government executed the attacks on 9/11 they would easily be able to shut down production of a film, let alone just kill off those who may be starting a conspiracy theory. However, I disagree that just because this didn't happen it is full proof that the government is innocent and had nothing to do with 9/11. Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event? The questions posed by the public are ignored by the government, and given to a team of writers to make a book that still leaves the questions UNanswered. The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another.

Posted by: ZD621

Anyway, let's apply the same process to another controversial item.

Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event?

When the evidence doesn't point to it, I find it hard to believe that it's responsible.

Is it really that improbable that the moon is not made out of cheese? Admittedly, we've had photographic and spectroscopic evidence for years, we've had lunar samples returned which show a decided lack of dairy products, we've had people walk on it who've found nothing resembling cheese... but still the question remains. Could the moon indeed be made of cheese?

The answer to that question is, of course, dependent on how determined you are to maintain your view that the moon is made of cheese. Did the astronauts look under every rock? Did they do deep-core drilling to get samples beyond a possibly stony rind? How do we KNOW the moon is not made of cheese? Have we taken it apart, sifted down through every bit to make sure there's no brie or cheddar hidden amongst the minerals?

There is, to my thinking, no amount of evidence that will persuade a hard-core 'truther'. Look at your own circuitious logic, and you yourself put it solidly - "The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another."

Give me your proof. Give me the facts that make you think that. Persuade me. That's what I'm asking you to do, and this doesn't do it.

J.

J.

Down in Rusted Sky: This has GOT to be the best 9/11 Debunking Site... I've been having a 'conversation' with some truthers.

Frankly, I'm frustrated. I cannot seem to get it through that I'm not looking for arguments, I'm not looking for rhetoric, I'm not looking for some diatribe about past sins of the US showing how our government MIGHT have orchestrated 9/11 to get us into a war on terror. (And as I said to Alyne, "You say that like 's a BAD thing.")

I'm looking for facts. I'm looking for hard data. I'm looking for good, solid, documented evidence that the US orchestrated 9/11, and so far the folks presumably at the University of Western Florida are failing miserably to provide that. Here's the latest examples....

First, we have what seems to be a moral equivalence argument. No opinion or worldview is better than another, but some are just plain wrong....

Everyone is entittled to their own views about everything that happens in the world, but you say that the government could not kill its own people. While then how about when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the government did not believe the guy who had cracked Japan's code and figured out when, where, and what time the attack was going to happen. When he told them about it the government had discharged him from the military and told him that he had translated the code wrong. The government had left the soilders without any type of information about the attacks and unperpaired for them. The government had let the attacks happen so that the people would agree to support them in a war. So if the government could do this once then why couldn't they do again. I think that the government plans this kind of thing when it is on the verge of losing the people's support. 9/11 was just an excuse to get the American people to come together and support a war that could led to the end of the terrorist in the world.

Posted by: alyne

Alyne -

9/11 was just an excuse to get the American people to come together and support a war that could led to the end of the terrorist in the world.

You say that like it's a BAD thing.

Okay, I'll make it as plain as I can. I've asked several times for FACTS, and you try to keep palming off OPINION. You are not convincing me of anything except the sheer lack of a base for your opinions. Handwaving about the past doesn't do a blessed thing towards convincing me of anything in the present.

You will not convince me with anything less than hard, solid, factual evidence. Please take a look at the Popular Mechanics article I referenced above (er... below - ed.) for the type of proof that I'm looking for. Those guys did the job, looking into everything the so-called 'truthers' claimed about 9/11 and finding their 'facts' to be a pile of steaming misconceptions and downright misrepresentations.

Read it. Think about what you read. Then try to frame your 'evidence' in the same fashion, with the same factual backing the PM editors did.

Good luck.

J.

Sheesh. I'll give them this much - they're better than the random skaters who would occasionally find a post I did on Skatestoppers on the old blog and would try to justify their vandalism as 'creative expression', yet would seem to get all bent out of shape at the idea that maybe the owner of the property they skated on would object to their use of it!

Anyway, on to the next.

Your main assumption is that the government could not have conducted the attacks on 9/11 based upon the fact that Dylan Avery is alive today and the film Loose Change is still available for public view on the internet. I beg to disagree with this assumption. One, just because this college student is still alive does not mean that the government is blameless for the horrific acts from that September. Two, this assums that Al Quaeda was successfully able to accomplish this while placing the blame on the United States government. This cannot make sense, since this is an impossible feat for a single human being. Third, this assumption would claim that a single person, with terrible pioting skills, was able to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon without leaving any significant evidence around the Pentagon and leaving no significant eye witnesses. Based upon these, I think that your assumption needs to be reexamined.

Posted by: belliott

Belliot -

Again, you're missing a point here. I'm asking for the sources of your opinions. I want to know WHY you believe as you do. I know why I believe as I do. Here's some info on the Pentagon.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

You might want to read the whole article, but please pay special attention to the paragraph on the Pentagon that says "At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon."

I gotta tell you, I'm not impressed yet with the quality of analysis you folks at the U of WF are capable of. I keep asking for facts (an example of which is the Popular Mechanics article above) and you keep trying to hand me garbage. You're running out of time.

J.

And science beats fantasy when it comes to real-world applications. The folks at UWF haven't figured that out yet.

J.

The Edwards campaign's made a conscious attempt to discredit itself. Buying into the fiction that Fox is a biased news service (where I find them to be unbiased, asking difficult questions of both left and right candidates) they've decided they're not going to be put in a position where they can't control the questioning.

Join the Campaign to Change America / John Edwards '08 Blog

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

If this is indicative of their thinking, I sure don't want them to get into power. How long would it be before they shut down everything they don't like?

Some of the comments are interesting - it seems people don't much agree with the stance...

John Edwards decision to pull out of a debate because it was sponsered by Fox News is both disturbing and sets a poor precedent. While one can legitimately debate the bias of Fox News (and CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS), Fox News is within the mainstream of political thought in this country. If Mr. Edwards can't deal with that concept then he probably isn't a suitable candidate for the Democratic Party.

Finally this action will just give the Republicans excuses to duck out of debates where they believe that the sponsor might be biased slightly against them in the future.

I would urge Mr. Edwards to reconsider his position on this topic.

Mark E. Lago Vista, TX

by mandms
on 3/10/2007 at 10:04 AM EST

That is what is absurd about this. You nailed it. Fox is within the mainstream of poitical thought. Though I agree that they are more balanced - I still take all I hear with a grain of salt. If one thinks Fox or anyone else is lying...go find the truth. It is out there but often not on the mainstream media. The North American Union is an example of a topic that Fox won't touch. It may be the conservative topic of the century - but it would split them from that mainstream if they did. Yes Fox is more conservative than the rest but only by a few degrees - not 180. Even if they were the official Republican party mouthpiece, the two parties aren't 180 degrees apart. The exception is the war. Republicans mostly insist on winning while democrats mostly just want to get out. Leaving equals defeat.

by buffmonsterdog
on 3/10/2007 at 10:16 AM EST

From reading most of these comments I get the impression that Edwards supporters think only people who agree with them should be allowed time on media outlets, that it is awful that Ailes owns Fox News but fine when Turner owned CNN, etc.. You aren't for "fair and balanced"; you're for stifling free exchange of ideas.

by independent

It's gonna be a hell of a long political season. Is this the first of many tantrums from the Democratic Party? And what does it tell you about their reaction to any opposition IF elected?

More and more I'm getting less and less inclined to think of any democrat as a viable political candidate... and I'm getting less and less inclined to think of the Democratic Party as viable.

J,

I've been waiting for the Uof WF Truthers to get back to me, after posting links to several debunking sites.

So far, silence. Of course, they might have better things to do with their weekend than try to convince me that there's some grand conspiracy because (_fill in the blank_) couldn't (_fill in the blank_) unless (_fill in the blank_) because (_fill in the blank_). As AJacksonian wrote on it -

Basically, when you have to go 'another level deeper' to explain why the data isn't so, you know something is fishy. When nefarious conspiracies get added in, you can feel the hot air. So when you hear about conspiracies in an area like NOLA, you find that everyone wants politics to be the cause... not just a contributing factor with the main cause of subsidence remaining, to this day, unaddressed. For 9/11 you find that the hijackers spent hours in trainers learning how to fly their target aircraft, but spending little on learning take-off and landings. The instructors actually raised flags about that locally, and that got to one FBI office... and was ignored. But that is just bureaucracy, not malice aforethought.

Heading towards conspiracies is a dis-empowering concept: you absolve yourself of having to do anything and, instead, look for those trying to control the world via conspiracies. Thus you do not have to take part in the normal, humdrum and everyday world in which effects can have complex causes and not have easy remedies. My main gripe about such 'truthers' is that if there are groups "running the world" they are doing a damn poor job of it. Pure and outright incompetence, in fact, as any conspiracy or set of same that had so much capability and so much power wouldn't be so idiotic in the things they are purported to do.

There will always be skeptics - but it's time to make it pretty clear that not all theories of what caused a particular event are to carry the same weight, and once you start tossing out hard science in favor of nebulous assertation of 'facts' you might just as well turn your theory into a bit of fiction. As Clive Cussler knows, you can make a fair bit of money in the realm of conspiracy fiction - there's always some poor sap who'll believe the Titanic was sunk because it carried a load of very expensive ore that the French didn't want out of their hands...

But simply because it's in print doesn't make it so.

J.

While oil prices are dropping a bit.

Well, it IS the time for changeover to the 30+ summer blends that are mandated by various EPA regs. And I'd like you to notice something...

For all the screaming and posturing about high gas prices LAST year, nothing got done about them. We've still got the mish-mash of boutique blends demanded by the environmentalists, we still haven't authorized drilling in ANWR, and folks are still fighting more drilling off the Gulf Coast and Florida, not to mention not building more refineries.

So don't gripe about some mythical conspiracy by the gas companies to drive up the cost - we've done it to ourselves.

More about it here...

J.

Last summer, we were determined the little guy would learn to ride his bike. He went from being afraid of it, to loving the feeling of riding along, culminating at the end of the summer on a ride on the Silver Comet Trail. Haven't been doing much riding since - too much to do and not enough time, what with schoolwork and all... but we're taking the trailer, with a newly installed bike rack, down to the Gulf Coast for Spring Break and taking the bikes along so I'm doing clean-up and fix-up... and found that Aaron's pretty much outgrown the bike he was using. Or, rather, it didn't fit him. (By the way, John, would you like it back?)

So he now has a new 24" bike, one that should last him for a few years. He loves it - the gears shift smoothly, it pedals so easily... it's odd to remember being a kid and the feeling you got from something so simple and yet magical in the ability to give a freedom you'd never experienced before...

J.

Over at MSNBC right now, the main headline is "On The Defensive - For The First Time, Bush Faces Opposition Congress with Subpoena Power". And there's not a single mention of Iraq above the fold. There IS a story about "Accident Blast Rocks Kabul, at least 4 killed", however it looks like an accident at a gunpowder store. Way below the fold, in their World News section, there's a report about the Iraqi PM visiting a Sunni stronghold. And that's it.

On Fox, you've got to go way below the fold for a mention of Iraq. And that's a photo essay.

If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead. So what does that motto say about Iraq at this point?

J.

Some Muslim workers at Target refuse to handle pork | buzz.mn

First it was the flying imams. Then the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't take dogs or transport alcohol (either inside or outside passengers.)

Now this - a cashier who wouldn't scan a package containing pork. A frozen pepperoni pizza... She had to call someone to scan it for her.

I wonder - if she were fired for not doing her job, would Target get sued?

J.

In the wake of the revalations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confessions, I wonder what those poor saps at U of WF are thinking? Or are they just going to write it all off as a fantasy, as coerced confessions, or a fabrication by the US Government? I mean, they KNOW the government was really behind 9/11, so why is this guy claiming credit for the planning?

I do know this much - when I asked for a source for their thinking, I never got anything solid back. When I posted links to sites with debunking info on 9/11 conspiracies, asking for something as solid in return, I received no reply. Nothing in the spamtrap, nothing held for moderation, no comments back on that subject at all. Do you think they followed the links, read them, and were embarrased at their gullibility? Hell, I know I'd be.

You know, that's no way to convince someone of the rightness of your position. If you disagree with something I say, I'd really like to have a link or other information about WHY you believe the way you do. I'm always open to learning new things - but if you've got a disagreement you need to have your info lined up to get me to change my mind, and those poor saps just didn't have it.

J.

We have another Truther popping in! Ashley posted in Rusted Sky: Is it REALLY so difficult?

In reference to Ben's talk of evidence, yes there was such things as a single blurry video released and there was a some scrap metal to be found on the prestine lawn after the hit but when weighing the facts it just doesn't add up.

Why release only the single unclear video from the apparent only securit camera to catch the footage on the world's most protected building? Why would the goverment take all of the security camera tapes from surrounding buildings?

Yes, another video was recently released but it's footage is more uncler and questionable than the first. Also, why did the government take so long for it to be released for public viewing in the first place.

Are you truly willing to support that a B757 hit the Pentagon based on two bad videos and simply because it is what the government told you to be the truth? Are you willing to stand up for something that leads to more questions than answers? While living in a nation today filled with so much lies and deceptions, can you really put your whole self into backing something that has been told to you without even the evidence to add up to what you are being told to be true. Just because it was the head of our country to tell us what happened, doesn't mean that they cannot simply lie about it like any other person.

Ashley -

Look at http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html - and read the whole thing.

Also look at http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#hani-hanjour - and keep scrolling down.

I swear, if what you posted is supposed to be substatiated, well-researched, well-thought out opinion on the subject, you need a refund of your tuition. Have you bothered to do ANY research on this, to SEE what's out there? Or are you depending on the opinions of your friends, who haven't bothered to research it either?

I've been paying attention on this since day one. I'd really like to see how you're going to disprove the information on those sites - you seem exceedingly certain you're in the right, so convince me with information that's as solid as what's above. You seem convinced it's out there - show me links to it. But you'd better make it to hard, solid FACT - not 'well, what if' blue-sky bullshitting.

Isn't college supposed to teach you how to research a subject? Have you been paying attention? If so, they seem to have failed - because they haven't taught you how to tell the difference between rumor and fact and apparently you don't have the skills to actually do your own research and draw your own conclusion from facts. Instead, you apparently dive deep into groupthink - someone told you this, so it MUST be true!

I mean, it's not like it's hard to find FACT with Google, along with fantasy!

Someone's fed you a load of garbage, Ashley - you need to close your mouth and open your eyes.

J.

J.

In a not terribly suprising move, the flying imams are making a very big thing out of suing all and sundry involved with their embarrasment.

Imams' suit risks 'chill' on security

Six imams who are suing an airline and an airport for removing them from a flight also have aimed the lawsuit at passengers who the imams believe reported some of their activities.

The suit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis names as defendants "John Does" who "contacted US Airways to report the alleged suspicious behavior" of the imams before the Nov. 20 flight -- an inclusion some lawyers, who are not connected to the litigation, say will have a "chilling effect" on airline security.

"If such a suit could proceed, it would have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to provide information that authorities need to act when people are engaged in wrongdoing," said Mark Behrens, a liability defense lawyer with the Washington firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon.

"If reporting suspicious behavior becomes actionable, that could have a dangerous precedent for reporting other crimes, like child abuse and abductions," Mr. Behrens said. "It's certainly a form of intimidation to go after passengers."

The lawsuit primarily targets US Airways and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, but suing passengers who report suspicious behavior "sends a terrible message if we are at all concerned about the threat of terrorism," said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of several books on litigation in the U.S.

"The implications are that if you appear to just buzz about what you perceive to be a security threat then you are a legal wrongdoer and responsible for damages, even if all you did was notify the authorities. And that would have a tremendous chilling effect, win or lose.

"Unless this is thrown out of court early, the lesson learned will be that next time someone sees something, it may be safer to stay quiet and hope someone else reports it. Even if the charges get thrown out or dropped, this is an announcement that you could be caught up in litigation for years and spending your savings on lawyers."

According to a Bedouin fable, an Arab and his camel were crossing the desert. Night came and the temperature dropped. The Arab put up his tent, tied his camel to it, and went to sleep.

The temperature dropped further, and the camel asked the Arab for refuge from the cold.

The Arab was adamant. "There is only room in the tent for one!"

The camel was quiet for a few minutes, but soon asked again. "Please, Master! Just my nose. If I could just put my nose in your tent, it would keep me from freezing out here."

The Arab reluctantly agreed.

The camel's nose became warm, but after a while the temperature went down even more. The camel woke the Arab and asked, "Please, can I just put my forelegs in the tent? They are very cold!"

Again the Arab reluctantly agreed. "Only your forelegs, nothing more!" So the camel nudged his forelegs into the tent and they became warm.

After some time, the camel woke the Arab again. "Master, I must put my hind legs in the tent. Otherwise I fear that they will freeze and I won't be able to finish our journey tomorrow. What good is a camel with frozen hind legs?"

So the Arab agreed once more, and the camel moved his hind legs in. But since there was only room in the tent for one, the Arab was forced to move out into the cold, where he barely survived the night.

Whap that nose and keep it out of the tent. These guys are pushing hard, and suing the folks who were worried isn't going to alleviate fears that they were up to something and prove their 'innocence' - it makes me think they were seeing just what they could get away with.

J.

There's an on-line world called 'Webkinz'. The little guy wanted to get a Webkinz stuffed toy, because it's got a code on it that'll allow entry into Webkinz world and a lot of his friends have them. You end up with a virtual pet that you've got to feed and take care of, and you can earn Kinzcash to do that through games and quizzes. So we now have Fuzzy the cat that the little guy's made an 11-room mansion for - but the place is notably bare of furnishings. (One must have priorities, after all. I hate to see him going the ego-mansion route, but hey - it's his pet.)

And Sue and I were having so much fun with the games, (visual puzzles, pattern matching, clones of old classic arcade games) that we got Webkinz of our own. (Two tree frogs - Flipper and Frankie.) Yes, we ARE kids, even if our bodies aren't exactly 8-year-old size.

It's a pretty kid-safe environment - and it's pretty restrictive on the messages and such that can be sent between the kids. There's plenty of games for them to play, and lots of two-player games. The kids can send their pets to each other's homes, though it's kind of difficult to communicate. There's a chat system, but like I said it's pretty restrictive in the messages. There's no way to send plain text, you've got to choose from the remarks that are preprogrammed.

It's kind of wierd. World of Warcraft never really appealed, Second Life sounded technically interesting but not something I wanted to waste a lot of time and money on - particularly time. Webkinz are a bit different - you log on, play some games, play with your pet a bit and you're done - you don't have do to anything more than you want to. Yeah, it's not much compared to Second Life - but it's just right for kids.

What wonders we've created just for fun...

J.

Mother is frail.

Well, that kind of understates things. "Frail" applies to Mother like "Damp" applies to the ocean - it doesn't quite give you an adequate idea of her condition. Since a bout of RSV-induced pneumonia about four, five years back, she's been in pretty bad shape and was on oxygen when they were back in New Mexico. At the lower altitude here, she hasn't needed a whiff of supplemental oxygen.

Until today.

She and Father caught a cold last week, and Saturday she was afraid that it was settling into pneumonia. Waiting until today, she got a doctor's appointment - and the doctor quickly got her to the ER so they could start a drip on her and run some antibiotics. Listening to her lungs and an x-ray convinced him she was in the beginning stages of bacterial pneumonia, but there was a good chance of stopping it before it got a solid hold on her system. So they decided to treat her with a combination of antibiotics, and keep her in the hospital overnight.

After the first bag (sorry, but I didn't jot down what it was) Mother said her throat stopped hurting. After the second bag, the nurse came in and listened to her lungs... and didn't hear anything unusual.

Now we wait. IF the pneumonia's knocked down/out, then she'll go home tomorrow. If not... well, I'd like to get her out of there if possible tomorrow. There's just too many sick people there, and I'm afraid she's going to catch something.

J.

Looks like the antibiotics have worked pretty well - Mother MAY be able to go back to Winnwood tomorrow, but more likely Thursday.

Many thanks for all the good wishes...

More later...

J.

I need one of these!

Not really. I'm MUCH less disturbed these days...

J.

I tend to believe global warming is real. As readers of this blog know, I've looked at a lot of the science behind it, and am pretty well convinced by Ruddiman's article that it's real, and it's been going on since the beginning of human agriculture. And given the cyclical nature of climate change, it's managed to stall off a significant cooling trend that would leave Canada in the grip of glaciers.

So when Al Gore comes in like a prophet, insisting that we must change how we're doing things, but refuses to take a pledge to cut his own energy use, that just doesn't cut it. He's attempting to turn the entire subject of global warming into a religion, complete with indulgences, that HE is the high priest of with the implication that he is infallible and cannot be questioned. You must accept that Global Warming is real, that Al Gore is the only person with a clue on what to do, and you must do what he says or we're all gonna die.

My Way News - Gore Implores Congress to Save Planet

Fresh off a triumphant Academy Awards appearance in which his climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars, Gore drew overflow crowds as he testified before House and Senate panels about a "true planetary emergency" if Congress fails to act. He said addressing the problem is a moral issue and should not be a partisan or political.
But Gore faced a more skeptical reception than the warm embrace he received from Hollywood as Republicans questioned the science behind his testimony.

"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures. Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point - Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said.

Gore insisted that the link is beyond dispute and is the source of broad agreement in the scientific community.

It doesn't help when he comes up with stuff like this...

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants - a major source of industrial carbon dioxide - that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," Gore said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

A WARMING WORLD / China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases

Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

Trading and or purchasing carbon offsets is an emerging business, and CNSNews is also pursuing an investigative story into whether Gore or his company are making money from these offsets. It’s quite possible, for example, that GIM’s offsets actually produce financial benefits for the Gores either through tax deductions or even business profits.

A Gore spokesman refused to shed light on the personal net financial impacts to Gore, instead telling CNSNews that Mr. Gore, "as a private citizen, does not release his private income.”

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

Environmentalism: Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer.

And Al Gore will gladly sell you a nebulous, unverifiable way to atone for your sinful emissions. Saviour or con man? You decide. Like I said, I think global warming's real. There's also indications that the sun's output is a bit higher than it was, so things are open to interpretation - it's hard to lock down a particular course of action (if there even is one) about what to do about Global Warming.

But I think L. Ron Hubbard coming up with Dianetics was a piker in comparison to the scam Al Gore's running on the world.

Carbon offsets to relieve global warming, sold to you by the guy who is promoting the idea that global warming is a threat and we must act NOW, with no hesitations, no questions, because it's a planetary emergency...

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

J.

Three Major Terror Busts in Iraq -- Iran, Syria Connections Exposed, Say U.S. Officials

U.S. forces have arrested the two leaders of the network believed responsible for the brazen raid in Karbala by terrorists disguised as Americans, in which five U.S. soldiers were kidnapped and later killed in January, U.S. military officials said today.

In operations over the past several days in Basra and Hillah, coalition forces captured Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali and several other members of the Khazali network, a splinter faction of the Mahdi army.

Senior U.S. military sources tell ABC News that hard evidence linking the Khazalis to the Karbala raid, including the ID cards of several of the dead American soldiers, was recovered at the scene.

The coalition also found evidence linking the men to Iran and to an arms smuggling operation that included the high impact Explosively Formed Projectiles, or EFPs, according to U.S. officials.

Instead, the breaking news of the hour according to MSNBC? UK troops held by Iran, NY State says rodent poison found in pet food that killed several animals, and Iraq's deputy PM wounded in an attack.

My father said the other day if we tried to fight WW2 the same way we're fighting this war, with no news allowed from the MSM except BAD news, we'd have given it up as unwinnable in '43. Part of it may be a holdover from Viet Nam, where the media diligently earned a great mistrust from the military - but as Michael Yon points out it out here and here the Army isn't making it easier for the folks who WANT to put out an unbiased account, or positive info on the troops. Or any info at all on that matter.

RUBS

Raw, Unedited, Barely Spell-checked

22 March 07

The great difficulty in filing stories from Iraq is leading me to experiment. We are into the fifth year of the war Iraq, yet no comprehensive system exists to help media communicate to people at home. Raw information only trickles back from Iraq because the flow is strangled. That we are into the fifth year of war here, yet there is no filing center on even the larger bases is telling. Telling, perhaps, that information flow to America has never been a priority, or perhaps the priority has been to squelch it. The system of elaborate excuses is the only part of it all that is well-refined.

....

RUBs will amount to little more than a stream-of-consciousness note…tapped out as quickly as I can, and posted without checking nary a tense or, comma.

For the first RUBS, let’s start with day to day stuff. I’ve been evicted from a trailer due to lack of space (something I cover more in a dispatch ready to launch tomorrow). Billions of dollars are spent on the war each month, millions of dollars fly around here like sparrows, yet there are no designated places for journalists? While so many soldiers and their families shout for coverage from Afghanistan (remember that place?) and Iraq, I can sometimes be found from midnight to sunrise sitting outside, trying to transmit photos through a wireless network that only works sometimes. RUBS will be mostly sans photos.

When my writings about Mosul started to attract a huge readership, the MSM press took notice, though not always with Tony C’s collegial tone. Many “professional journalists” sneered at my work. The most common criticism was that I lacked “objectivity” because I called enemy fighters “terrorists” when they used car bombs to blow up civilians, or because I openly admitted that as an American, I hoped “our side” would win. I seemed to get particularly bad marks for describing the outcomes of combat missions with terms like: “killed the enemy,” “shot the terrorist,” or “captured the suspects.” But in the context of the war as I was seeing it, the terminology was accurate.

What's it going to take to get folks in the media to realize we're literally in a battle for the future of a lot of the freedoms we take for granted, and that some are so ready to give up if a PC multicultural stink is raised? What will get the media to realize that their quiet tearing down of our military while pointedly ignoring things done by insurgents is not conducive in the long run to their survival as anything but a mouthpiece for the people who would cut their unbeliveing throats without a second thought?

Another 9/11? A suicide bomber attack on the NY Times? Maybe nuking New York? (And won't the 'truthers' have a friggin' field day in THAT event!)

We're in a fight for our lives, for our cultures. And some prefer to obsess over hangnails, refusing to look up and acknowledge the wider conflict.

J.

Breaking News: Passengers released | Local News | News for Charlotte, North Carolina | WCNC.com | Top Stories

The passengers quarantined at Charlotte Douglas International Airport for several hours Friday afternoon have been released, according to a U.S. Airways spokesperson.

The 112 passengers and four crew members were cleared to leave the plane at around 7:30 p.m., after being detained because a fellow passenger on the flight from New Orleans claimed to have smallpox.
The passenger was taken to Carolinas Medical Center for testing, and the results were negative, CMC spokesman Scott White said.

But the passengers remained on the plane after the man was cleared, because the Mecklenburg County Health Department needed to conduct further tests before releasing the passengers.

As Flight 1014 was landing in Charlotte, the passenger allegedly shouted that he had exposed everyone to smallpox. The airline is now backing off initial reports that he was intoxicated.

Stupid, definitely. But why wouldn't I be terribly surprised to find the guy had an Arabic name?

J.

Mother came home from the hospital on Sunday. The pneumonia had cleared out well enough by Thursday or so, but she was so weak it was difficult for her to care for herself. Finally she got to a minimal level, and we took her home, with strict instructions to get her rear in gear and not lay in bed all day long.

She followed that advice on Monday - but today (dang, is it Tuesday already?) she was very reluctant to get out of bed. She finally managed - but it's worrisome. She's got to move around more - and she doesn't want to.

Saturday, Father and I went to WalMart to get some stuff for their new apartment... only on Sunday they decided they weren't going to get the place. Damn shame - but they need to stay in the assisted living a bit longer.

Work is... somewhat busy. Same old, same old. On the home front - the guy across the street, Gordon, is the owner of A Approved Windows and Siding, and he gave us a good deal on some new windows - the catch being I've got to help them install the things. Last night was spent removing trim around the windows, tonight was spent installing three windows in the kitchen. They're good windows, too - Simonton Reflections 5500s, which have a much better R-rating than the old double-hungs they're replacing. Truth be told, I'm kind of surprised it's so easy to replace the things... of course, 'easy' is pretty darn relative.

So if I haven't been blogging much the last week or so - there's been a reason. It's called - sitting down and falling asleep at 10:30...

J.

Blue LEDs: A health hazard?

I LIKE blue LEDs...

J.

Silverbrook's Memjet printer technology available late 2007, company says | Texyt

For $200? Wow. I'll believe this when it gets into production and I can buy one at Office Depot. This would blow HP and Canon out of the water.

Of course, you've got to factor in the consumables. I wonder what the ink prices would be like?

Still, the technology behind it... wow.

J.

Sky News: 'Outrageous And Cruel'

The Foreign Secretary has criticised Iran for releasing a letter purportedly from a captive British sailor calling for the UK to withdraw its forces from Iraq.

Margaret Beckett said: "We have not seen this letter but we have grave concerns about the circumstances in which it was prepared and issued.

What a farce.

J.

Internet Archive - which has movies, text, audio, software... all sorts of stuff. Kust downloaded a bunch of OTR broadcasts for the coming week...

Anyway, browse around - you might find something fun! (Like "Hitler - Dead or Alive!")

J.

Unless I can find access somewhere. Going on vacation, to Gulf Shores Park. Be back in a week or so.

Gotta hit the sack - chat at y'all later - and play nice, okay? Consider this an open thread, opine and argue to your heart's content.

J.

Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds - Popular Mechanics

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

Sigh.

You ever wonder why folks can't seem to grasp the physical facts of 9/11, and defer instead to junk like this? It's because Rosie, for all her ignorance on the subject, is listened to by a lot of folks... and they believe her.

So when she's determinedly ignorant on a subject, yet blathers about it anyway - who are the folks who are accustomed to believe Rosie going to believe? Someone they know (even if that person doesn't know what they're talking about) or some scientist who doesn't have name recognition, but has forgotten more about physics than Rosie ever learned?

Stupid question. Never mind.

J.