Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
"I've been underfire for years for not supporting Al Gore's claims. Finally - it's almost run it's course."
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The extended shovel arm is made of hardened refined steel.
The approaching overpass is made of commercial-grade concrete,
reinforced with 1 1/2 inch steel rebar spaced at 6 inch intervals in a criss-cross pattern layered at 1 foot vertical spacing.
Solve: When the shovel arm hits the overpass, how fast
do you have to be going to slice the bridge in half??
(Assume no effect for headwind and no braking by the
driver...) Extra Credit: Solve for the time and distance
required for the entire rig to come to a complete stop
after hitting the overpass at the speed calculated above.?
Yes, you can neglect friction.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
• John Edwards on cheating on Elizabeth Edwards: “Can I explain to you what happened? First of all it happened during a period after she was in remission from cancer.”
• Nancy Pelosi: “I have always loved longitude. I love latitude; it’s in the stars. But longitude, it’s about time. … Time and clocks and all the rest of that have always been a fascination for me.”
• President Bush, meeting with President Arroyo of the Philippines: “I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the — of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House.”
• Barack Obama: “Can you imagine if you had your Social Security invested in the stock market these last two weeks? These last two months? You wouldn’t need Social Security. You’d be having a – you know like, what was it. ‘Sanford and Son,’ ‘I’m coming Weezie.’ It ain’t right.”
• John McCain: “We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.”
• Chris Matthews: “It’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
I have become a fan!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Well, good news: America's airlines are now having a half-price sale on ancient MD-80s, 747s, and other gas guzzlers.
A mere $4 million will get you an MD-80. But hurry. If you don't buy them soon, they'll be shipped to Russia and other emerging-markets, where they'll be flown for the next sixty years.
Other models being pulled from U.S. fleets include Airbus A300s, four-engine Boeing 747s, which predate the new generation of twin-engine jumbo jets; and Boeing MD-80s that American is replacing with new 737s burning 25 percent less fuel.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I think Barack looks like John Edwards.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
A wee bit of heaven
Drifted down from above
A handful of happiness
A heartful of love
A mystery of life
So sacred and so sweet
The giver of joy
So deep and complete.
Precious and priceless
So lovable too
The world's sweetest miracle
Baby, it's you.
Granddaughter Layla Nicole - born today 3:05pm Pensacola Florida.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Pierce, who makes no excuses for his love of "being stimulated", said, "I'd like a sizeable amount of ready cash. Five to ten million would be about right."
Pierce has been a tax payer for 36 years and feels the time is right for the American Government to - in his words - "give back."
At no time has Pierce been a burden to the Government in any way, and he feels as long as checks are flying all directions, he might as well ask for one.
Pierce says he'd like to spend more time watching his 50 inch Sony TV, and an infusion of cash would be, "just what the doctor ordered."
There's no word from Washington yet, on Pierce's proposal.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Over the last year, most political TV shows handicapping the upcoming presidential election have repeated the refrain that the race will be extremely tight. Last month, CNN's astute commentator Jeff Greenfield hosted an entire segment on how easily this election could turn out like 2000, with President Bush and Sen. John Kerry splitting victories in the popular vote and the electoral college. Greenfield even threw out the possibility of an electoral college split of 269-269, brought about by a shift of just two swing states that went for Bush last time, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. He ended his feature with the conventional wisdom among Washington pundits: "We're assuming this election will stay incredibly close."
Reporters covering the campaign echo this expectation, sprinkling their campaign dispatches with references to the "closely fought" electoral race and "tight election."
The campaign staffs themselves have been saying for months that they anticipate that the race will go down to the wire. In late April, Republican party chairman Ed Gillespie told The New York Times that he expected a "very, very close" race. This winter, Democratic party chairman Terry McAuliffe urged Ralph Nader not to enter the race, fearing that the perpetual candidate could take precious votes away from Kerry in a race sure to be won by a hairline margin.
There are perfectly understandable reasons why we expect 2004 to be close. Everyone remembers the nail-biting 2000 recount. A vast number of books and magazine articles describe the degree to which we are a 50/50 nation and detail the precarious balance between red and blue states. And poll after poll show the two candidates oscillating within a few percentage points of one another. There are also institutional factors that drive the presumption that the race will be tight. The press wants to cover a competitive horse-race. And the last thing either campaign wants to do is give its supporters any reason to be complacent and stay home on election day.
But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.
Bush: the new Carter
In the last 25 years, there have been four elections which pitted an incumbent against a challenger--1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. In all four, the victor won by a substantial margin in the electoral college. The circumstances of one election hold particular relevance for today: 1980. That year, the country was weathering both tough economic times (the era of "stagflation"--high inflation concurrent with a recession) and frightening foreign policy crises (the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Indeed, this year Bush is looking unexpectedly like Carter. Though the two presidents differ substantially in personal style (one indecisive and immersed in details, the other resolute but disengaged), they are also curiously similar. Both are religious former Southern governors. Both initially won the presidency by tarring their opponents (Gerald Ford, Al Gore) with the shortcomings of their predecessors (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Like Carter, Bush is vulnerable to being attacked as someone not up to the job of managing impending global crises.
Everyone expected the 1980 election to be very close. In fact, Reagan won with 50.8 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 41 percent (independent John Anderson won 6.6 percent)--which translated into an electoral avalanche of 489 to 49. The race was decided not so much on the public's nascent impressions of the challenger, but on their dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
Nor was Carter's sound defeat an aberration. Quite the opposite. Of the last five incumbent presidents booted from office--Bush I, Carter, Ford, Herbert Hoover, and William Howard Taft--only one was able to garner over 200 electoral votes, and three of these defeated incumbents didn't even cross the 100 electoral-vote threshold: --1992: 370 (Bill Clinton) to 168 (George H. W. Bush) --1980: 489 (Ronald Reagan) to 49 (Jimmy Carter) --1976: 297 (Jimmy Carter) to 240 (Gerald Ford) --1932: 472 (FDR) to 59 (Herbert Hoover) --1912: 435 (Woodrow Wilson) to 88 (TR) to 8 (Taft)
Historically, when incumbents lose big, they do so for sound reasons: The public sees their policies as not working--or worse yet, as failures. That's certainly increasingly true of Bush today. From the chaos in Iraq to an uncomfortably soft economic recovery to the passage of an unpopular Medicare bill, the White House is having a harder and harder time putting a positive spin on the effects of the president's decisions.
And while Bush still retains a loyal base, he has provoked--both by his policies and his partisanship--an extremely strong reaction among Democrats. One indication is that turnout in this year's early Democratic primaries was way up. Nearly twice as many Democrats turned out for the 2004 Iowa caucuses as they had for those held in 2000. The turnout in New Hampshire for the Democratic primary was also extraordinarily high, up 29 percent from the previous turnout record set in 1992--the year Bush's father lost his reelection bid.
The Democrats' recent enthusiasm at the polls may in part be because this year's primary featured nine candidates, and Howard Dean's unusual campaign mobilized many new voters--both for and against him. However, the excitement in the Democratic race can't explain primary voter behavior on the other side of the aisle. Republican turnout in the New Hampshire primary was lower than in 2000, but that isn't surprising considering that Bush's nomination was never in question this year. A fairer way to gauge the eagerness of the president's base to rally behind him is to compare this GOP primary to the last one that featured an incumbent running for reelection with no real primary opposition: Bill Clinton in 1996. That year in New Hampshire, 76,874 Democrats cast ballots for Clinton. This year, 53,749 Republicans cast ballots for Bush. This is especially astonishing, considering that, in New Hampshire, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats.
The most obvious evidence cutting against the historical trend of elections featuring incumbents being won or lost by large margins is that opinion polls have consistently shown Bush and Kerry running neck and neck. But look carefully, and you'll find a couple of nuances in the most recent poll data that point to the potential for a big Kerry win. First, in polls that implicitly assume a higher turnout, Kerry performs better than he does in other polls. Most of the polls you hear about--and the ones that prognosticators trust the most--are surveys of "likely voters." Among the criteria pollsters typically use to identify likely voters is whether the subjects participated in the last election. These polls have proven more accurate in recent elections, like 2000, when voter turnout was relatively low--of the last nine presidential elections, only two showed lower turnout than 2000. But there are strong reasons to think that voters will turn out in larger numbers this year--especially among Democrats.
Four years ago, when the economy was strong, the country wasn't at war, and both presidential candidates ran as moderates, just 43 percent of adults told an early April Gallup poll that they had been thinking about the election "quite a lot." This April, when the issues seem much bigger and the differences between the candidates much starker, Gallup found that 61 percent of adults said they had been giving "quite a lot" of thought to the election.
So, presuming higher turnout, an arguably better predictor of election results would be polls of registered voters--both those who voted and those who stayed home in 2000. In an early April Gallup poll, Kerry trailed Bush 46 percent to 48 percent among likely voters, but led 48 percent to 46 percent among registered voters. Kerry's support had dropped incrementally in a late April Gallup poll, but he continued to garner higher support among registered voters than likely voters.
The second nuance to look at is what political consultant Chris Kofinis calls "the Bush bubble": the gap between the president's overall approval ratings and his approval ratings on specific policy areas. According to the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, Bush's approval rating now stands at 51 percent. That isn't bad, though it is noticeably below what the last two incumbents who won reelection had at this point in the election cycle: Reagan's approval was 54 percent and Clinton's was 56 percent. But even Bush's 51 percent may be softer than it looks. In the same poll, on seven of nine major policy issues--the economy, Iraq, Social Security, health insurance, taxes, jobs, the deficit--less than half of respondents said that they approved of the president's performance. In several cases, his approval was well below 50 percent. Only 45 percent approved of Bush's handling of Iraq; 44 percent of his performance on the economy; 34 percent of his performance on the deficit; and 33 percent of his stewardship of Social Security. Even on policy areas in which the president's approval is now relatively high--education and the war on terror--he is vulnerable to later substantive attacks by Kerry. For instance, he currently garners 51 percent approval on education, due largely to his role in passing a bold education measure; increasingly, however, educators and the public are alarmed about the effects of No Child Left Behind.
Of course, the tight polling data does reflect a fundamental reality: For all the fallout from his policies, Bush still appeals to many Americans because of his seeming decisiveness, straight talk, and regular-guy charm--not qualities that John Kerry prominently displays. The historical pattern may strongly suggest that if Kerry wins, it will be by large margins--but that is hardly fated. It will only happen if Kerry successfully highlights Bush's failings while showing himself to be an appealing alternative. Otherwise, the senator could see himself losing an electoral rout, not winning in one. In fact, the second most likely outcome of this election is a Bush landslide. With just one exception, every president to win a second consecutive term has done so with a larger electoral margin than his initial victory. The least likely result this November is another close election.
Right now, the president is vulnerable. As The New Republic's Ryan Lizza argued in a recent New York Times editorial, undecided voters "know [the incumbent] well, and if they were going to vote for him, they would have already decided. Thus support for Mr. Bush should be seen more as a ceiling, while support for Mr. Kerry, the lesser-known challenger, is more like a floor."
That points to both an opportunity and a challenge for the Kerry campaign. Kerry needs to convince voters that he's up to the job--and that Bush isn't. If he can woo voters dissatisfied with Bush's policies, there's a potential--and historical precedent--for Kerry to win big.
Chuck Todd is the editor in chief of National Journal's Hotline.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
* Main Riser Position - $935 (Includes 4 Main Riser Credentials, 5'x8' Slot on Covered Main Riser and one 20 amp circuit)
* Main Riser Position with Telecommunications - $1870 (Includes Main Riser Position services, PLUS two unlimited long distance/local phone lines and one wired high speed internet connection)
* Cut Riser Position - $880 (Includes 4 Cut Riser Credentials, 5'x8' Slot on Covered Cut Riser, one 20 amp circuit)
* Cut Riser Position with Telecommunications - $1815 (Includes Cut Riser Position services, PLUS two unlimited long distance/local phone lines and one wired high speed internet connection)
* Press File Seat - $935 (includes 1 Press File Credential, seat in heated Press File Tent, Power, Cable Television, High Speed Wired Internet Service, Catering)
* Satellite Truck Position - $900 (includes 35'x20' parking position and 100 amp electrical service)* Radio Position - $715 (includes table space and chair behind the riser, power and an ISDN BRI line for radio -- comes with two credentials)
Billing information must be submitted at as part of the request. Your credit card will not be charged until the campaign confirms your coverage resource package request.
Additional services may be purchased a la carte:
* Unlimited Long Distance Phone Line - $300
* High Speed Wired Internet - $275
* One 20 amp circuit - $165
For telephone service internet connectivity and additional power, orders must be placed by October 23rd, 2008.
*Media call letters (if applicable):Base of Operations: Country name (required if international):City media outlet is based:
*Media Type:PhotographyTV CameraTV AudioTV ProducerTV TalentTV SupportRadioPrintInternet
* denotes required field
I've been doin' this a long time. This is really really really wierd.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
The UFO shot across the sky in front of clouds above Dudley in the West Midlands U.K.
The photo was taken by a 57-year-old nanny on a day out last April. DC Heseltine, of Wakefield, West Yorks, has now handed it over for study to a former US navy physicist who specialises in photo analysis.
The British Transport Police officer will reveal the findings at the UFO Data Magazine annual conference in Pontefract, West Yorks, on October 25.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Here's the look of "Gotcha Journalism." Charlie Gibsons "smirk" says it all.
On display for all to see is the journalist ready with the difficult to answer question. Then when the interview-ee stumbles - GOTCHA.
It's easy to play this game. It doesn't even take a real journalist to play. It takes a GAME SHOW HOST.
That's what the pre-Presidential election interviews are becoming....Jeopardy - or better still - "Who wants to be a Millionaire."
All the candidates are under fire.
Gotcha questions are difficult if not impossible to answer, especially under the constraints of a debate or a TV channel looking for a quick soundbite.
Sarah Palin is most in the cross hairs of GOTCHA JOURNALISM. I won't even attempt to defend her answers. The questions weren't designed to be answered. If she HAD answered then succinctly - the answer wouldn't be broadcast.
When she receives these questions over the next 30 days or so, I want her to respond - "What am I gonna win?"
I want her to ask Katie Couric next time they speak to explain what frequency WCBS-TV New York broadcasts on. Channel 4 is not the answer. Katie oughta know - after all she's the Networks Top Dog. She's been in Journalism over 30 years.
Katie will stammer. She's spent her whole professional life in Broadcasting - and knows so little about it. If by chance she has the right answer - make the follow-up, "Go into detail about Digital TV Bandwidth."
Now it’s your turn. Watch the video and decide. Is it cute or creepy?
Yes, a few years ago, I dressed as a woman. Notice the resemblance to Elizabeth Taylor? Actually, I'm a cross between Liz & Aunt Bea.
The best part of this get up - was the breeze from beneath.
So there it is. I'm not ashamed. I am secure enough in my masculinity to actually try this.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Just the fact that she allowed the picture to be taken, tells me she's a good sport.
This post contains the word "wiener" and a womans name. I'll get thousands of hits.
The world is a sick place.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
As of September 16, the margin in electoral votes could be as high as 282.8 votes for Senator John McCain against 255.2 for Senator Barack Obama, depending on the forecasting scenario.
Operations researcher Sheldon H. Jacobson, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, along with a group of students and collaborators at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, created http://election08.cs.uiuc.edu/, a math model that dynamically forecasts the outcome of the election.
Prof. Jacobson and colleagues will present their findings at the INFORMS annual meeting, which takes place in Washington, D.C. at the Marriott Waldman Park Hotel and Omni Shoreham Hotel from October 13 – 15, less than three weeks before the election. Over 4,000 analysts and experts in analytics are expected to attend. Information is at http://meetings.informs.org/DC08/.
Jacobson's model applies a mathematical model to state polling data, using a dynamic programming algorithm to forecast electoral results.
"The results from the 2000 and 2004 presidential election suggested that it can be difficult to predict the winner of the presidential election based on popular vote," says Jacobson. "In fact, it is possible that the popular vote and the Electoral College vote can lead to significantly different results."
Jacobson's model employs Bayesian estimators (which help scientists make decisions when conditions are uncertain) to determine the probability that a candidate will win each state. He obtains state polling data from Rasmussen Reports, the Quinnipiac University Poll, and SurveyUSA. State-by-state probabilities are then used in a dynamic programming algorithm to determine a probability distribution for the number of Electoral College votes that each candidate will win in the 2008 presidential election.
Professor Jacobson believes that this model provides a more realistic method of predicting the results. In 2004, when most other polls showed Kerry with a clear edge, his model consistently showed a Bush victory.
"We take into account 'safe' states— states that each candidate is basically guaranteed to win," says Jacobson. "In 2004, once you took into account Bush's 'safe' states, he had a much narrower gap to close to get to 270 electoral votes than Kerry."
In the model, a safe state is one in which the candidate has an 85% chance or greater of winning.