http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
April 16, 2008
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
...about intelligent design and evolution
By John Rennie and Steve Mirsky
In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take.
1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.
2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
"Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.
3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.
4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.
The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)
5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.
Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.
6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.
Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.
Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.
During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.
Inside and outside the scientific community, people will no doubt continue to debate rationalism and religion and disagree about who has the better part of that argument. Evidence from evolution will probably remain at most a small part of that conflict, however.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
$100 fill-ups arrive at gas pumps
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/04/23/gas.prices/index.html
$100 fill-ups arrive at gas pumps
Story Highlights
Many California gas stations have already jumped over $4 a gallon
AAA spokesman says rest of nation should brace for such prices in coming months
"It's absolutely ridiculous," one woman says after paying $101 to fill up
Fuel-efficient Toyota Prius owner pays $43 to fill tank: "This is brutal"
COALINGA, California (CNN) -- Noel Bosse and Ken Davis watch as the numbers keep spinning at the gas pump -- 70 bucks, 80 bucks. Gulp, guzzle, then it stops: $101 for about 25 gallons.
The $100 fill-up has arrived in the United States.
"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Bosse says with disgust.
Bosse and Davis are returning from Las Vegas, Nevada, heading back to their home near Seattle, Washington. They're pulling a trailer full of Arabian horses in their passenger van.
Bosse says they're averaging 200 miles every fill-up or 10 miles to the gallon. Watch how soaring prices are changing lives »
Bosse has been showing dogs and horses in competitions across the country for 35 years. With gas prices soaring, she's starting to rethink some of the upcoming shows.
"We're sitting here hauling a horse trailer eating gas," she says. "I don't see how people make it these days."
California is home to the nation's highest average gas price, $3.87 for regular unleaded; diesel is pushing $4.43 a gallon, according to Troy Green, with AAA.
San Francisco is the most expensive city, averaging $3.97 a gallon. However, a drive around the city shows many stations have jumped over $4.
The national average for regular unleaded is $3.53 and rising daily. Last year at this time, it was $2.86 per gallon. According to AAA, 24 states and the District of Columbia are averaging at or above $3.50 a gallon for regular unleaded. The state with the lowest gas is New Jersey, at $3.34 per gallon.
Green says Americans should expect the price to increase another 25 cents over the next month and continue to climb over the summer months.
"A national average approaching $4 a gallon should not be ruled out by consumers later this year," he says. Watch truckers head to Mexico for $2 gas »
AAA has seen that when gas prices hit "exorbitant levels" -- as Green puts it -- Americans change their vacation plans. During such times, he says, Americans are more prone to travel closer to home, stay at less expensive hotels, eat at fast-food restaurants than fancier dine-in restaurants and plan more online trips looking for the best deals.
This year's record high gas prices -- coupled with a slow economy and the mortgage crisis -- have had a cascading effect. A person making $9 an hour needs to work nearly seven hours just to pay for 15 gallons at $4 a gallon, according to CNN.com's gas calculator. Interactive: How much do you need to work to pay for your gas? »
"It seems many American consumers are being hard hit from multiple directions, and their overall budgets are being maxed to the limit," Green says.
As for California, Green adds, "It's unbelievable out there."
That's a sentiment shared by Diddy Dennis, a cab driver in San Francisco. He's been driving for nearly 11 years and the gas prices are directly cutting into his wallet. He recalls the early 2000s when people started complaining when gas out West started hitting $2.60.
"That looks like heaven now," Dennis says.
His big smile and warm laugh provides an air of calm in his cab, even if he's eating into his way of life every time he presses the gas pedal. He estimates he's making about 60 percent less than he used to when he first started driving.
"It's really hitting us," he says.
San Francisco commuter Debbie Jasmin says she's stopped driving her gas-gobbling Expedition and started taking the subway to work more. She's also curbed summer travel plans.
"I don't really think we have seen the worst of it," Jasmin says.
At a San Francisco Chevron, Scott Roberts is stunned when he pulls into the station in his pint-sized Toyota Prius, which gets over 40 miles per gallon. The person before him paid $115.80 for 27.9 gallons. The price at the station ranges from $4.14 for regular unleaded to $4.39 for supreme unleaded.
Roberts mutters the Lord's name in vain. "This is brutal," he says. "Today's the first time I've seen it over $4 in my lifetime."
By the time he's finished, it's cost him $43 to fill his Prius -- an amount that just a few years ago was reserved for giant sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
Nearby, Dolly Sarlo fills up her black Mercedes. She says it's time for Americans to "vote with your dollars and to stop using gas" and use public transportation more.
"That would really, very quickly bring down the price," she says.
She then drives off.
CNN's Chris Lawrence, Gregg Canes and Wayne Drash contributed to this report.
$100 fill-ups arrive at gas pumps
Story Highlights
Many California gas stations have already jumped over $4 a gallon
AAA spokesman says rest of nation should brace for such prices in coming months
"It's absolutely ridiculous," one woman says after paying $101 to fill up
Fuel-efficient Toyota Prius owner pays $43 to fill tank: "This is brutal"
COALINGA, California (CNN) -- Noel Bosse and Ken Davis watch as the numbers keep spinning at the gas pump -- 70 bucks, 80 bucks. Gulp, guzzle, then it stops: $101 for about 25 gallons.
The $100 fill-up has arrived in the United States.
"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Bosse says with disgust.
Bosse and Davis are returning from Las Vegas, Nevada, heading back to their home near Seattle, Washington. They're pulling a trailer full of Arabian horses in their passenger van.
Bosse says they're averaging 200 miles every fill-up or 10 miles to the gallon. Watch how soaring prices are changing lives »
Bosse has been showing dogs and horses in competitions across the country for 35 years. With gas prices soaring, she's starting to rethink some of the upcoming shows.
"We're sitting here hauling a horse trailer eating gas," she says. "I don't see how people make it these days."
California is home to the nation's highest average gas price, $3.87 for regular unleaded; diesel is pushing $4.43 a gallon, according to Troy Green, with AAA.
San Francisco is the most expensive city, averaging $3.97 a gallon. However, a drive around the city shows many stations have jumped over $4.
The national average for regular unleaded is $3.53 and rising daily. Last year at this time, it was $2.86 per gallon. According to AAA, 24 states and the District of Columbia are averaging at or above $3.50 a gallon for regular unleaded. The state with the lowest gas is New Jersey, at $3.34 per gallon.
Green says Americans should expect the price to increase another 25 cents over the next month and continue to climb over the summer months.
"A national average approaching $4 a gallon should not be ruled out by consumers later this year," he says. Watch truckers head to Mexico for $2 gas »
AAA has seen that when gas prices hit "exorbitant levels" -- as Green puts it -- Americans change their vacation plans. During such times, he says, Americans are more prone to travel closer to home, stay at less expensive hotels, eat at fast-food restaurants than fancier dine-in restaurants and plan more online trips looking for the best deals.
This year's record high gas prices -- coupled with a slow economy and the mortgage crisis -- have had a cascading effect. A person making $9 an hour needs to work nearly seven hours just to pay for 15 gallons at $4 a gallon, according to CNN.com's gas calculator. Interactive: How much do you need to work to pay for your gas? »
"It seems many American consumers are being hard hit from multiple directions, and their overall budgets are being maxed to the limit," Green says.
As for California, Green adds, "It's unbelievable out there."
That's a sentiment shared by Diddy Dennis, a cab driver in San Francisco. He's been driving for nearly 11 years and the gas prices are directly cutting into his wallet. He recalls the early 2000s when people started complaining when gas out West started hitting $2.60.
"That looks like heaven now," Dennis says.
His big smile and warm laugh provides an air of calm in his cab, even if he's eating into his way of life every time he presses the gas pedal. He estimates he's making about 60 percent less than he used to when he first started driving.
"It's really hitting us," he says.
San Francisco commuter Debbie Jasmin says she's stopped driving her gas-gobbling Expedition and started taking the subway to work more. She's also curbed summer travel plans.
"I don't really think we have seen the worst of it," Jasmin says.
At a San Francisco Chevron, Scott Roberts is stunned when he pulls into the station in his pint-sized Toyota Prius, which gets over 40 miles per gallon. The person before him paid $115.80 for 27.9 gallons. The price at the station ranges from $4.14 for regular unleaded to $4.39 for supreme unleaded.
Roberts mutters the Lord's name in vain. "This is brutal," he says. "Today's the first time I've seen it over $4 in my lifetime."
By the time he's finished, it's cost him $43 to fill his Prius -- an amount that just a few years ago was reserved for giant sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
Nearby, Dolly Sarlo fills up her black Mercedes. She says it's time for Americans to "vote with your dollars and to stop using gas" and use public transportation more.
"That would really, very quickly bring down the price," she says.
She then drives off.
CNN's Chris Lawrence, Gregg Canes and Wayne Drash contributed to this report.
The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen
http://www.avclub.com/content/dvds/the_adventures_of_baron_munchausen
The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition
(Sony)
Reviewed by Nathan Rabin
April 23rd, 2008
Sarah Polley has said that making 1988's Adventures Of Baron Munchausen was "traumatic." After watching The Madness And Misadventures Of Munchausen—a riveting, brutally candid making-of documentary included on Sony's new double-disc DVD set—that seems like an understatement. For a cast and crew saddled with a spiraling budget, endless bad luck, and a sinister German producer who comes off like a cross between Otto Preminger and Uwe Boll, making Munchausen was an experience to be survived rather than savored. All the madness, drama, and waste did pay off creatively, though not financially: Munchausen cost and lost a fortune. But in the hackneyed parlance of show-biz, every dollar is up on the screen in an exquisite cavalcade of wildly imaginative setpieces dreamed up by Gilliam and production designer Dante Ferretti, who picked up the first of eight Oscar nominations for the film.
A massive flop turned cult favorite, Munchausen casts British stage actor John Neville as a legendary tale-spinner who joins forces with precocious moppet Polley and reunites with his trusted band of adventurers to save a city from Turkish invaders. Neville's preposterous quest sends him spinning through fantastic worlds, from a lunar wonderland ruled by the disembodied head of Robin Williams to the insides of a sea creature to the subterranean lair of the Roman God Vulcan (Oliver Reed).
Munchausen presents its fantasist hero as a glorious anachronism, a proponent of wonder in an age of reason and rationality. In that respect, he mirrors Gilliam's gloriously old-fashioned cinematic fantasia, which boasts a retro charm and craftsmanship unthinkable in our CGI-addled era. A feast for the eyes, Munchausen solidifies Gilliam's status as a crucial link between the cine-magic of Georges Méliès and the homemade dream-worlds of Michel Gondry. The script is fortified with Python-esque verbal humor, but it wouldn't take much tweaking to transform Munchausen into a silent film. Throw in a naked Uma Thurman at the height of her nubile beauty, and you have a rambling but irresistibly powerful illustration of what the film's terminally practical villain (Jonathan Pryce) sneeringly refers to as "hot air and fantasy."
Key features: The making-of, a less-compelling but still engaging commentary from Gilliam and co-writer Charles McKeown, deleted scenes, and storyboards.
The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition
(Sony)
Reviewed by Nathan Rabin
April 23rd, 2008
Sarah Polley has said that making 1988's Adventures Of Baron Munchausen was "traumatic." After watching The Madness And Misadventures Of Munchausen—a riveting, brutally candid making-of documentary included on Sony's new double-disc DVD set—that seems like an understatement. For a cast and crew saddled with a spiraling budget, endless bad luck, and a sinister German producer who comes off like a cross between Otto Preminger and Uwe Boll, making Munchausen was an experience to be survived rather than savored. All the madness, drama, and waste did pay off creatively, though not financially: Munchausen cost and lost a fortune. But in the hackneyed parlance of show-biz, every dollar is up on the screen in an exquisite cavalcade of wildly imaginative setpieces dreamed up by Gilliam and production designer Dante Ferretti, who picked up the first of eight Oscar nominations for the film.
A massive flop turned cult favorite, Munchausen casts British stage actor John Neville as a legendary tale-spinner who joins forces with precocious moppet Polley and reunites with his trusted band of adventurers to save a city from Turkish invaders. Neville's preposterous quest sends him spinning through fantastic worlds, from a lunar wonderland ruled by the disembodied head of Robin Williams to the insides of a sea creature to the subterranean lair of the Roman God Vulcan (Oliver Reed).
Munchausen presents its fantasist hero as a glorious anachronism, a proponent of wonder in an age of reason and rationality. In that respect, he mirrors Gilliam's gloriously old-fashioned cinematic fantasia, which boasts a retro charm and craftsmanship unthinkable in our CGI-addled era. A feast for the eyes, Munchausen solidifies Gilliam's status as a crucial link between the cine-magic of Georges Méliès and the homemade dream-worlds of Michel Gondry. The script is fortified with Python-esque verbal humor, but it wouldn't take much tweaking to transform Munchausen into a silent film. Throw in a naked Uma Thurman at the height of her nubile beauty, and you have a rambling but irresistibly powerful illustration of what the film's terminally practical villain (Jonathan Pryce) sneeringly refers to as "hot air and fantasy."
Key features: The making-of, a less-compelling but still engaging commentary from Gilliam and co-writer Charles McKeown, deleted scenes, and storyboards.
Danica Patrick makes IndyCar history
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D905JBL00
Danica Patrick makes IndyCar history by winning Japan 300
Apr 20, 2008
By JIM ARMSTRONG
AP Sports Writer
MOTEGI, Japan (AP) - Danica Patrick became the first female winner in IndyCar history Sunday, taking the Indy Japan 300 after the top contenders were forced to pit for fuel in the final laps.
Patrick finished 5.8594 seconds ahead of pole-sitter Helio Castroneves on the 1.5-mile Twin Ring Motegi oval after leader Scott Dixon pitted with five laps left and Dan Wheldon and Tony Kanaan came in a lap later.
"It's a long time coming. Finally," Patrick said. "It was a fuel strategy race, but my team called it perfectly for me. I knew I was on the same strategy as Helio and when I passed him for the lead, I couldn't believe it. This is fabulous."
The 26-year-old Patrick won in her 50th career IndyCar start, taking the lead from Castroneves on the 198th lap in the 200-lap race.
"I think Danica is such a fantastic person and I'm thrilled for her that the monkey is finally off of her back," said Michael Andretti, co-owner of Andretti Green Racing. "We have all believed in her and she proved today that she is a winner. Frankly, I think this is the first of many."
Dixon took the lead from Castroneves on the 93rd lap in the race pushed back to Sunday because of wet track conditions Saturday, but gave up the spot to pit for fuel.
"We led for a lot of laps but came up short," Dixon said. "But congratulations to Danica for her first victory."
Patrick, who started from the third row and made her final pit stop on lap 148, stayed close to the leaders throughout the race.
Patrick went from fourth to second place on lap 197 after Wheldon and Kanaan went into the pit on lap 196. She was as low as eighth place on the 189th lap.
"I knew there was a good reason for coming to Japan," Patrick said. "I want to thank my team, the fans and everyone who supported me."
Dixon was third, 10.0559 seconds behind Patrick. Wheldon was fourth, and Kanaan finished fifth.
Castroneves, awarded the pole position after qualifying was rained out Friday, said Patrick ran a great race.
"With five laps to go, I was saving fuel," Castroneves said. "When Danica passed me, I realized she was the leader. She did a great job, passed me fair and square and that shows you how competitive our series is."
Patrick finished a career-best seventh in the season standings last year, and was second in the race at Detroit's Belle Isle.
At the 2005 Indy 500, she nearly won the pole and became the first female driver to lead the race en route to a fourth-place finish. It was the best finish by a woman at Indy, and helped her take rookie of the year honors.
Danica Patrick makes IndyCar history by winning Japan 300
Apr 20, 2008
By JIM ARMSTRONG
AP Sports Writer
MOTEGI, Japan (AP) - Danica Patrick became the first female winner in IndyCar history Sunday, taking the Indy Japan 300 after the top contenders were forced to pit for fuel in the final laps.
Patrick finished 5.8594 seconds ahead of pole-sitter Helio Castroneves on the 1.5-mile Twin Ring Motegi oval after leader Scott Dixon pitted with five laps left and Dan Wheldon and Tony Kanaan came in a lap later.
"It's a long time coming. Finally," Patrick said. "It was a fuel strategy race, but my team called it perfectly for me. I knew I was on the same strategy as Helio and when I passed him for the lead, I couldn't believe it. This is fabulous."
The 26-year-old Patrick won in her 50th career IndyCar start, taking the lead from Castroneves on the 198th lap in the 200-lap race.
"I think Danica is such a fantastic person and I'm thrilled for her that the monkey is finally off of her back," said Michael Andretti, co-owner of Andretti Green Racing. "We have all believed in her and she proved today that she is a winner. Frankly, I think this is the first of many."
Dixon took the lead from Castroneves on the 93rd lap in the race pushed back to Sunday because of wet track conditions Saturday, but gave up the spot to pit for fuel.
"We led for a lot of laps but came up short," Dixon said. "But congratulations to Danica for her first victory."
Patrick, who started from the third row and made her final pit stop on lap 148, stayed close to the leaders throughout the race.
Patrick went from fourth to second place on lap 197 after Wheldon and Kanaan went into the pit on lap 196. She was as low as eighth place on the 189th lap.
"I knew there was a good reason for coming to Japan," Patrick said. "I want to thank my team, the fans and everyone who supported me."
Dixon was third, 10.0559 seconds behind Patrick. Wheldon was fourth, and Kanaan finished fifth.
Castroneves, awarded the pole position after qualifying was rained out Friday, said Patrick ran a great race.
"With five laps to go, I was saving fuel," Castroneves said. "When Danica passed me, I realized she was the leader. She did a great job, passed me fair and square and that shows you how competitive our series is."
Patrick finished a career-best seventh in the season standings last year, and was second in the race at Detroit's Belle Isle.
At the 2005 Indy 500, she nearly won the pole and became the first female driver to lead the race en route to a fourth-place finish. It was the best finish by a woman at Indy, and helped her take rookie of the year honors.
26 to get back health coverage taken away
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/17/BUNV107EF0.DTL
26 to get back health coverage taken away
Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, April 18, 2008
State regulators ordered on Thursday the immediate reinstatement of 26 health insurance policies for consumers who were wrongly stripped of them, marking the beginning of a process that could lead to restoring coverage to thousands of Californians.
The Department of Managed Health Care, which has been investigating the practices of the five largest health plans offering individual coverage in California, plans to review every revoked individual policy identified in its investigation over the past four years to determine whether the decisions were justified.
Health insurers can legally rescind coverage if a member intentionally withheld or lied about his or her medical history on the application. But insurers have come under fire for a practice known as "rescission," in which they use minor or inadvertent mistakes to justify canceling coverage after a member becomes sick.
While consumers appeal the decision or sue their insurer for dropping them, they typically are left with large medical bills, no insurance and zero chance of getting another insurer to cover them.
"We are moving forward now on restoring coverage and giving consumers the fair process they are owed as fast as possible," said Cindy Ehnes, director of the Department of Managed Health Care. "People need their medical bills paid, and they need their coverage now."
As part of Thursday's announcement, the department conducted an initial review of 286 policies that were rescinded by Kaiser Permanente, Blue Shield of California and Blue Cross, now called Anthem Blue Cross.
The agency identified 26 of the most egregious cases and ordered those policies be reinstated immediately. The 26 consumers have not yet been informed of the decision.
Ehnes said the department focused on cases that demonstrated the consumer was clearly innocent, such as the case of a woman who was accused of lying about having a condition for which she was never diagnosed or treated.
Ehnes said her department does not have the authority to order a blanket reinstatement for all rescinded policies, but must consider each on a case-by-case basis. She did not know how long the process will take, but said a third-party reviewer would investigate all rescissions between 2004 and 2008.
Consumer groups were pleased the state took action, but were concerned about outstanding rescissions.
"Today's announcement applies to only 26 people, but the same law used here will provide reinstatement for thousands more. We look forward to working with the department," said Jerry Flanagan, health care policy director for Consumer Watchdog.
E-mail Victoria Colliver at vcolliver@sfchronicle.com.
26 to get back health coverage taken away
Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, April 18, 2008
State regulators ordered on Thursday the immediate reinstatement of 26 health insurance policies for consumers who were wrongly stripped of them, marking the beginning of a process that could lead to restoring coverage to thousands of Californians.
The Department of Managed Health Care, which has been investigating the practices of the five largest health plans offering individual coverage in California, plans to review every revoked individual policy identified in its investigation over the past four years to determine whether the decisions were justified.
Health insurers can legally rescind coverage if a member intentionally withheld or lied about his or her medical history on the application. But insurers have come under fire for a practice known as "rescission," in which they use minor or inadvertent mistakes to justify canceling coverage after a member becomes sick.
While consumers appeal the decision or sue their insurer for dropping them, they typically are left with large medical bills, no insurance and zero chance of getting another insurer to cover them.
"We are moving forward now on restoring coverage and giving consumers the fair process they are owed as fast as possible," said Cindy Ehnes, director of the Department of Managed Health Care. "People need their medical bills paid, and they need their coverage now."
As part of Thursday's announcement, the department conducted an initial review of 286 policies that were rescinded by Kaiser Permanente, Blue Shield of California and Blue Cross, now called Anthem Blue Cross.
The agency identified 26 of the most egregious cases and ordered those policies be reinstated immediately. The 26 consumers have not yet been informed of the decision.
Ehnes said the department focused on cases that demonstrated the consumer was clearly innocent, such as the case of a woman who was accused of lying about having a condition for which she was never diagnosed or treated.
Ehnes said her department does not have the authority to order a blanket reinstatement for all rescinded policies, but must consider each on a case-by-case basis. She did not know how long the process will take, but said a third-party reviewer would investigate all rescissions between 2004 and 2008.
Consumer groups were pleased the state took action, but were concerned about outstanding rescissions.
"Today's announcement applies to only 26 people, but the same law used here will provide reinstatement for thousands more. We look forward to working with the department," said Jerry Flanagan, health care policy director for Consumer Watchdog.
E-mail Victoria Colliver at vcolliver@sfchronicle.com.
UnSnobbyCoffee.com
http://www.UnSnobbyCoffee.com/
McDonald's has made it simple and easy to get the delicious espresso drinks you crave. No crazy names or sizes. No second language required. Hang out. Have fun. And don't leave without your free espresso coupon.
McDonald's has made it simple and easy to get the delicious espresso drinks you crave. No crazy names or sizes. No second language required. Hang out. Have fun. And don't leave without your free espresso coupon.
The *NEW* Disinformation website
Disinfo.com
The *NEW* Disinformation website in beta. What do you think of the new site? We're still in BETA but please kick it around and give us your feedback. Add some Disinformation to your Technorati favorites.
The *NEW* Disinformation website in beta. What do you think of the new site? We're still in BETA but please kick it around and give us your feedback. Add some Disinformation to your Technorati favorites.
Even Santa believes in Mantle’s 565-foot blast
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AsGCsBKGb2esJp1kQOOdzzk5nYcB?slug=jp-mantlehomer041708
Even Santa believes in Mantle’s 565-foot blast
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
04-17-8
The longest home run ever hit did not go 565 feet. Not even close.
Actually, the longest home run ever hit isn’t even the longest home run ever hit.
“The truth hasn’t caught up to the original legend,” Bill Jenkinson says. He has been studying monster home runs for nearly three decades now, and he admits they’re a bit like Bigfoot or Nessie or any other great beast – untamable and apocryphal, fantasy getting one over on reality.
“Once a myth takes hold,” he says, “it very rarely is completely withdrawn.”
No home run carries the lore of the blast Mickey Mantle hit 55 years ago today, the one that still stands in the Guinness Book of World Records as the mightiest of all dating back to May 2, 1876, when Ross Barnes hit baseball’s first. Fact and fiction have blended Mantle’s shot off the Senators’ Chuck Stobbs and out of Washington’s Griffith Stadium into a grand tale, the kind that lasts more than half a century not because it’s true but because people want to believe it.
And who can blame them? The mammoth home run is the domain of gods, and Mantle, in his Yankee pinstripes, hitting from both sides with equanimity while nursing hangovers that would fell a man twice his size, was the kind in whom everyone believed. To think the Mick hit that ball 565 feet is to think that Santa Claus exists, and no one ever saw fault in that.
Mantle
Only 4,206 people could actually vouch for Mantle’s home run, the attendance sparse even with the four-time defending champions in town. It was the fifth inning. Wind gusted toward left field, where a huge sea of bleachers backed into a sign advertising National Bohemian beer.
In stepped Mantle against Stobbs, a middling left-hander. Mantle hadn’t felt right the first three games of the season, so he borrowed a 33-ounce bat from teammate Loren Babe. Of course his name was Babe.
Mantle connected on a belt-high fastball from Stobbs, and the ball kept soaring, a shooting star in the afternoon sky. It clanged off the Natty Boh sign, estimated about 460 feet from home plate, and disappeared. The ball had broken the confines of the stadium, and with it went any chance of truly knowing how far it traveled.
Still, Arthur “Red” Patterson, the Yankees’ enterprising public relations man, wanted to find out. So he returned with the ball – and a tall tale.
Patterson said he retrieved the ball from a 10-year-old boy named Donald Dunaway, who stood with it in the back yard of 434 Oakdale Lane. Patterson said he paid Dunaway $1 and sent him a pair of autographed balls in exchange for Mantle’s home run. Finding any record of a man named Donald Dunaway who would have been 10 years old in 1953 has proven elusive.
Until his death, Patterson never wavered on the Dunaway portion of the story. He did admit later in life that his claim of using a tape measure to record the distance between the ball’s landing spot where Dunaway found it and the edge of the stadium was dubious. Though the term tape-measure home run stuck, Patterson in reality walked the space himself, added the guess to 460 and, voilà, Mickey Mantle’s 565-foot home run was born.
Almost instantly, Mantle’s home run was famous. In the next day’s The New York Times, Louis Effrat wrote: “It is true that a strong wind might have helped Mantle, but if the A.A.U. will not recognize the homer, all of baseball will.” The Senators celebrated it by painting a baseball on the sign Mantle hit – at least until upper management removed it.
The more evidence surfaced to debunk it, the stronger the legend of 565 grew. Mantle himself said the home run he hit May 22, 1963, off Bill Fischer would have traveled farther had it not bounced off the right-field façade of Yankee Stadium. The work of physics professors, particularly Robert Adair, cast doubts on the ability of a ball to travel 500 feet, let alone 565.
“The ball could not have flown farther than 515 feet,” Jenkinson says, and even that, he believes, is a stretch. One physicist told him it went 498 feet. Jenkinson, whose book “Baseball’s Ultimate Power: The Kings of the Tape Measure” is set to come out next year, thinks it went 505 feet. A phenomenal home run, yes, one only a handful of players could hit. Not the best, though.
That, Jenkinson says, belongs to Babe Ruth. On June 8, 1926, at Navin Field in Detroit, Ruth hit a shot that traveled out of the stadium and, Jenkinson says, landed an estimated 575 feet away. The arc of Ruth’s swing, plus the speed he generated with a 44-ounce bat, gave him the extra 70 feet or so over Mantle’s.
Or another 121 feet, if you believe a different version of the story that says the ball jumped off the roofs of a few cars before landing. Turns out Mantle isn’t the only player whose home runs will cause a storyteller’s nose to grow, though his are the greatest culprits. Mantle hit so many prodigious drives that on one top 10 list, the 565-footer ranks sixth, and the Fischer home run is estimated at a truly impossible 734 feet.
Such nonsense bothers Jenkinson, because big home runs are his passion, and he figures the public is owed the truth. He’s right, of course, but he misses a point: There’s a piece of everyone that wants to think Mantle did hit his great home run 565 feet – that anyone could swing at a pitch and send it that far. The limits of credibility are only as big as we make them, and the inclination is to stretch them as far as the imagination allows.
“I buy into that,” Jenkinson says. “I was born in ‘47. All through the ’50s, this guy was like a golden child to me. I went on vacation with my family in August 1960, and by coincident, my great aunt, who I’d never met, lived in Oklahoma.
“I got there, and I remember seeing Mickey Mantle’s picture on her refrigerator and saying something. She said, ‘Well, do you want to meet his in-laws?’ It turns out (Mantle’s wife) Merlyn grew up next door. I was 13. Just the idea I was next door to a place where Mickey Mantle spent a lot of time gave me goosebumps.”
Mantle died almost 13 years ago. He was 63. He didn’t live to see the technological revolution that today allows the measurement of home runs to the tenth of a foot. Using everything from the temperature to the wind to the time the ball spent in the air to where it landed, Greg Rybarczyk created HitTracker, which charts every home run hit.
While the data is compelling, it’s also distressing. Part of the tape-measure home run’s beauty is the curiosity in how far it really went. Teams announce distances based off some chart, and it’s always just another guess, and you know, that’s all right. The longest home run ever hit did not go 565 feet. Maybe it went 505. Or 605. Or even longer.
Sometimes it’s OK to still believe in Santa Claus.
Even Santa believes in Mantle’s 565-foot blast
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
04-17-8
The longest home run ever hit did not go 565 feet. Not even close.
Actually, the longest home run ever hit isn’t even the longest home run ever hit.
“The truth hasn’t caught up to the original legend,” Bill Jenkinson says. He has been studying monster home runs for nearly three decades now, and he admits they’re a bit like Bigfoot or Nessie or any other great beast – untamable and apocryphal, fantasy getting one over on reality.
“Once a myth takes hold,” he says, “it very rarely is completely withdrawn.”
No home run carries the lore of the blast Mickey Mantle hit 55 years ago today, the one that still stands in the Guinness Book of World Records as the mightiest of all dating back to May 2, 1876, when Ross Barnes hit baseball’s first. Fact and fiction have blended Mantle’s shot off the Senators’ Chuck Stobbs and out of Washington’s Griffith Stadium into a grand tale, the kind that lasts more than half a century not because it’s true but because people want to believe it.
And who can blame them? The mammoth home run is the domain of gods, and Mantle, in his Yankee pinstripes, hitting from both sides with equanimity while nursing hangovers that would fell a man twice his size, was the kind in whom everyone believed. To think the Mick hit that ball 565 feet is to think that Santa Claus exists, and no one ever saw fault in that.
Mantle
Only 4,206 people could actually vouch for Mantle’s home run, the attendance sparse even with the four-time defending champions in town. It was the fifth inning. Wind gusted toward left field, where a huge sea of bleachers backed into a sign advertising National Bohemian beer.
In stepped Mantle against Stobbs, a middling left-hander. Mantle hadn’t felt right the first three games of the season, so he borrowed a 33-ounce bat from teammate Loren Babe. Of course his name was Babe.
Mantle connected on a belt-high fastball from Stobbs, and the ball kept soaring, a shooting star in the afternoon sky. It clanged off the Natty Boh sign, estimated about 460 feet from home plate, and disappeared. The ball had broken the confines of the stadium, and with it went any chance of truly knowing how far it traveled.
Still, Arthur “Red” Patterson, the Yankees’ enterprising public relations man, wanted to find out. So he returned with the ball – and a tall tale.
Patterson said he retrieved the ball from a 10-year-old boy named Donald Dunaway, who stood with it in the back yard of 434 Oakdale Lane. Patterson said he paid Dunaway $1 and sent him a pair of autographed balls in exchange for Mantle’s home run. Finding any record of a man named Donald Dunaway who would have been 10 years old in 1953 has proven elusive.
Until his death, Patterson never wavered on the Dunaway portion of the story. He did admit later in life that his claim of using a tape measure to record the distance between the ball’s landing spot where Dunaway found it and the edge of the stadium was dubious. Though the term tape-measure home run stuck, Patterson in reality walked the space himself, added the guess to 460 and, voilà, Mickey Mantle’s 565-foot home run was born.
Almost instantly, Mantle’s home run was famous. In the next day’s The New York Times, Louis Effrat wrote: “It is true that a strong wind might have helped Mantle, but if the A.A.U. will not recognize the homer, all of baseball will.” The Senators celebrated it by painting a baseball on the sign Mantle hit – at least until upper management removed it.
The more evidence surfaced to debunk it, the stronger the legend of 565 grew. Mantle himself said the home run he hit May 22, 1963, off Bill Fischer would have traveled farther had it not bounced off the right-field façade of Yankee Stadium. The work of physics professors, particularly Robert Adair, cast doubts on the ability of a ball to travel 500 feet, let alone 565.
“The ball could not have flown farther than 515 feet,” Jenkinson says, and even that, he believes, is a stretch. One physicist told him it went 498 feet. Jenkinson, whose book “Baseball’s Ultimate Power: The Kings of the Tape Measure” is set to come out next year, thinks it went 505 feet. A phenomenal home run, yes, one only a handful of players could hit. Not the best, though.
That, Jenkinson says, belongs to Babe Ruth. On June 8, 1926, at Navin Field in Detroit, Ruth hit a shot that traveled out of the stadium and, Jenkinson says, landed an estimated 575 feet away. The arc of Ruth’s swing, plus the speed he generated with a 44-ounce bat, gave him the extra 70 feet or so over Mantle’s.
Or another 121 feet, if you believe a different version of the story that says the ball jumped off the roofs of a few cars before landing. Turns out Mantle isn’t the only player whose home runs will cause a storyteller’s nose to grow, though his are the greatest culprits. Mantle hit so many prodigious drives that on one top 10 list, the 565-footer ranks sixth, and the Fischer home run is estimated at a truly impossible 734 feet.
Such nonsense bothers Jenkinson, because big home runs are his passion, and he figures the public is owed the truth. He’s right, of course, but he misses a point: There’s a piece of everyone that wants to think Mantle did hit his great home run 565 feet – that anyone could swing at a pitch and send it that far. The limits of credibility are only as big as we make them, and the inclination is to stretch them as far as the imagination allows.
“I buy into that,” Jenkinson says. “I was born in ‘47. All through the ’50s, this guy was like a golden child to me. I went on vacation with my family in August 1960, and by coincident, my great aunt, who I’d never met, lived in Oklahoma.
“I got there, and I remember seeing Mickey Mantle’s picture on her refrigerator and saying something. She said, ‘Well, do you want to meet his in-laws?’ It turns out (Mantle’s wife) Merlyn grew up next door. I was 13. Just the idea I was next door to a place where Mickey Mantle spent a lot of time gave me goosebumps.”
Mantle died almost 13 years ago. He was 63. He didn’t live to see the technological revolution that today allows the measurement of home runs to the tenth of a foot. Using everything from the temperature to the wind to the time the ball spent in the air to where it landed, Greg Rybarczyk created HitTracker, which charts every home run hit.
While the data is compelling, it’s also distressing. Part of the tape-measure home run’s beauty is the curiosity in how far it really went. Teams announce distances based off some chart, and it’s always just another guess, and you know, that’s all right. The longest home run ever hit did not go 565 feet. Maybe it went 505. Or 605. Or even longer.
Sometimes it’s OK to still believe in Santa Claus.
Vintage Ventura on Display in New Book
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan05/0,4670,VenturaBook,00.html
Vintage Ventura on Display in New Book
Saturday, January 05, 2008
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer
MINNEAPOLIS — Former Gov. Jesse Ventura may prefer Mexico to Minnesota these days, but his ex-constituents will still recognize his style if they pick up his upcoming book, "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me!"
Ventura uses the book _ part personal memoir, part political rant _ to rail against organized religion and the media, detail his brushes with celebrities and suggest that he should be viewed as a possible presidential candidate.
"Is it worth it to put my family and me out there, to take on a force that most of the American people are willing to go along with?" Ventura writes in the book, due in stores in April. "The government is supposed to be us, and it's not us anymore. It's been hijacked. Just when is somebody going to do something?"
The former pro wrestler hasn't reined in the outrageous opinions that often got him in trouble when he was governor from 1999 to 2003. The book is constructed as a loose travelogue of his and wife Terry's drive from Minnesota to Baja California, Mexico, where they now spend much of their time, but it leaves plenty of room for Ventura to digress into his obsessions.
He discusses at length the assassination of President Kennedy. He scorns the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and claims that during a trip to Dallas as governor a police officer warned him to avoid talking too much about "things that certain people don't want brought to light."
Ventura also airs his suspicion that "somebody in the government" sent people to infiltrate a government course he taught at Harvard University in 2004, on a day he discussed Kennedy's assassination. He repeatedly shows a fascination with conspiracy theories and surveillance, recalling several encounters he had with CIA agents while governor and claiming that his wife found an electronic listening device at their private home during his term.
He also discusses what he sees as the folly of organized religion. He argues that Catholic Church leaders should face racketeering charges for covering up sexual abuse by priests, then writes: "If Jesus came back today, I think he'd throw up."
Ventura recounts meeting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, with whom he spent time during a trade mission and found to be engaging and perceptive. He says he asked Castro about Kennedy's assassination and that the Cuban leader denied involvement but also believed Oswald did not act alone.
A harsh critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ventura says his doubts "have grown steadily" about the backstory to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"I think that bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for September 11th," Ventura writes. "But I also think it wasn't without some knowledge from our side."
Still, for someone who scorns all sides of the political debate, Ventura speculates on how his presidential bid would unfold. He ends the book with a series of fictional newspaper articles describing an insurgent 2008 campaign, with environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. as his running mate.
While the scenario starts off lighthearted _ Ventura kicks off his candidacy at a Wrestlemania event _ it takes a macabre turn in the end when he is shot by a Cuban exile upset over his opposition to the U.S. economic boycott against Cuba.
"While independent presidential candidate Jesse Ventura _ in a coma for the fourth consecutive day _ clung to life with family members gathered at his bedside, a White House press spokesman denied mounting allegations that accused assassin Raul Santana was part of a wider plot," one entry reads.
Vintage Ventura on Display in New Book
Saturday, January 05, 2008
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer
MINNEAPOLIS — Former Gov. Jesse Ventura may prefer Mexico to Minnesota these days, but his ex-constituents will still recognize his style if they pick up his upcoming book, "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me!"
Ventura uses the book _ part personal memoir, part political rant _ to rail against organized religion and the media, detail his brushes with celebrities and suggest that he should be viewed as a possible presidential candidate.
"Is it worth it to put my family and me out there, to take on a force that most of the American people are willing to go along with?" Ventura writes in the book, due in stores in April. "The government is supposed to be us, and it's not us anymore. It's been hijacked. Just when is somebody going to do something?"
The former pro wrestler hasn't reined in the outrageous opinions that often got him in trouble when he was governor from 1999 to 2003. The book is constructed as a loose travelogue of his and wife Terry's drive from Minnesota to Baja California, Mexico, where they now spend much of their time, but it leaves plenty of room for Ventura to digress into his obsessions.
He discusses at length the assassination of President Kennedy. He scorns the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and claims that during a trip to Dallas as governor a police officer warned him to avoid talking too much about "things that certain people don't want brought to light."
Ventura also airs his suspicion that "somebody in the government" sent people to infiltrate a government course he taught at Harvard University in 2004, on a day he discussed Kennedy's assassination. He repeatedly shows a fascination with conspiracy theories and surveillance, recalling several encounters he had with CIA agents while governor and claiming that his wife found an electronic listening device at their private home during his term.
He also discusses what he sees as the folly of organized religion. He argues that Catholic Church leaders should face racketeering charges for covering up sexual abuse by priests, then writes: "If Jesus came back today, I think he'd throw up."
Ventura recounts meeting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, with whom he spent time during a trade mission and found to be engaging and perceptive. He says he asked Castro about Kennedy's assassination and that the Cuban leader denied involvement but also believed Oswald did not act alone.
A harsh critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ventura says his doubts "have grown steadily" about the backstory to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"I think that bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for September 11th," Ventura writes. "But I also think it wasn't without some knowledge from our side."
Still, for someone who scorns all sides of the political debate, Ventura speculates on how his presidential bid would unfold. He ends the book with a series of fictional newspaper articles describing an insurgent 2008 campaign, with environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. as his running mate.
While the scenario starts off lighthearted _ Ventura kicks off his candidacy at a Wrestlemania event _ it takes a macabre turn in the end when he is shot by a Cuban exile upset over his opposition to the U.S. economic boycott against Cuba.
"While independent presidential candidate Jesse Ventura _ in a coma for the fourth consecutive day _ clung to life with family members gathered at his bedside, a White House press spokesman denied mounting allegations that accused assassin Raul Santana was part of a wider plot," one entry reads.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Sims Sells 100 Million Units
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167413
The Sims Sells 100 Million Units
In the land of games, Will Wright's interactive dollhouse reigns supreme.
By Mark Whiting, 04/16/2008
In the world of gaming there are smash hits and superstar successes... and then there's The Sims: a game so unbelievably popular, so cyclopean, that it defies all sane and rational attempts to classify it according to any conventionally understood game metric.
Let's be clear here. The Sims is so huge and influential that fully one fourth of EA's massive corporate structure is dedicated to its care and upkeep, placing the games corporate division separately alongside entities like EA Sports, EA Casual and... uh... everything else that EA makes. And why all the fuss, you might ask? Because, as of today, Will Wright's dollhouse brainchild has officially sold over 100 million copies -- putting its total units sold at a figure roughly 10 times that of contemporary PC behemoth World of Warcraft. The mind reels.
EA's Rod Humble was extremely chuffed to announce his company's historic milestone in a letter distributed today to Sims fans worldwide.
"This is an exciting time for the Sims," said Humble. "From teenage first kisses to stormy relationships, naming new babies to death by kitchen fire -- and even alien abductions, we've told a lot of stories together. [...] With the Sims we know that our players are truly unique. Players of the Sims see our games as a place to create characters, tell stories, explore relationships, live through generations design fashions and build homes and design their interiors."
Eat your heart out, Gears of War: Kitchen and Bath Interior Design Edition.
Over the years, The Sims has broken plenty of ground as a business paradigm along with its sales records -- proving once and for all that players' insatiable desire to dress pugs up in funny outfits can be fused with savvy product placement and corporate co-branding in order to produce bags of money seemingly out of thin air (example: a Ford Edge is available for download right now for your Sims off the company's website). With the release of the Sims 3 just around the corner, it's totally within reason to believe that that the Sims franchise could very well keep the merchandising streak, going on to sell 100 million more copies (and then some) at some point down the line.
To commemorate the big event, EA encourages you to head over to The Sims 2 official website right now to download a special "complimentary party skin" so that your your little peoples can celebrate the company's sweet, sweet fortune all night long.
The Sims Sells 100 Million Units
In the land of games, Will Wright's interactive dollhouse reigns supreme.
By Mark Whiting, 04/16/2008
In the world of gaming there are smash hits and superstar successes... and then there's The Sims: a game so unbelievably popular, so cyclopean, that it defies all sane and rational attempts to classify it according to any conventionally understood game metric.
Let's be clear here. The Sims is so huge and influential that fully one fourth of EA's massive corporate structure is dedicated to its care and upkeep, placing the games corporate division separately alongside entities like EA Sports, EA Casual and... uh... everything else that EA makes. And why all the fuss, you might ask? Because, as of today, Will Wright's dollhouse brainchild has officially sold over 100 million copies -- putting its total units sold at a figure roughly 10 times that of contemporary PC behemoth World of Warcraft. The mind reels.
EA's Rod Humble was extremely chuffed to announce his company's historic milestone in a letter distributed today to Sims fans worldwide.
"This is an exciting time for the Sims," said Humble. "From teenage first kisses to stormy relationships, naming new babies to death by kitchen fire -- and even alien abductions, we've told a lot of stories together. [...] With the Sims we know that our players are truly unique. Players of the Sims see our games as a place to create characters, tell stories, explore relationships, live through generations design fashions and build homes and design their interiors."
Eat your heart out, Gears of War: Kitchen and Bath Interior Design Edition.
Over the years, The Sims has broken plenty of ground as a business paradigm along with its sales records -- proving once and for all that players' insatiable desire to dress pugs up in funny outfits can be fused with savvy product placement and corporate co-branding in order to produce bags of money seemingly out of thin air (example: a Ford Edge is available for download right now for your Sims off the company's website). With the release of the Sims 3 just around the corner, it's totally within reason to believe that that the Sims franchise could very well keep the merchandising streak, going on to sell 100 million more copies (and then some) at some point down the line.
To commemorate the big event, EA encourages you to head over to The Sims 2 official website right now to download a special "complimentary party skin" so that your your little peoples can celebrate the company's sweet, sweet fortune all night long.
Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/people_nm/marilyn_monroe_sexfilm_dc
Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private
By Daniel Trotta
4-14-8
A 15-minute film of Marilyn Monroe engaging in oral sex with an unidentified man will be kept from public view by a New York businessman who has bought it for $1.5 million, the broker of the deal said on Monday.
Memorabilia collector Keya Morgan said he recently arranged the sale of the silent, black-and-white film from the son of a dead FBI informant who possessed it to a wealthy Manhattan businessman who wants to protect Monroe's privacy.
"The gentleman who bought it said out respect for Marilyn he's not going to make a joke of it and put it on the Internet and try to exploit her," said memorabilia collector Keya Morgan. "That's not his intention and I would never get my name involved if that were to happen."
Monroe is clothed and the man's head remains out of the frame for the entire 15 minutes of the film, said Morgan, who watched it.
Monroe was rumored to have had an affair with U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and Morgan said then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, a Kennedy rival, went to great lengths to try to prove it was Kennedy in the film.
One of Monroe's ex-husbands, the late baseball great Joe DiMaggio, once tried to buy it from the collector for $25,000 but "he would not part with it," according to FBI files on Monroe that are available on the FBI Web site.
Morgan is a well-known collector who owns memorabilia from the estates of Monroe and DiMaggio and said he was friends with Monroe's other two husbands, Jim Dougherty and Arthur Miller.
He said he learned of the existence of the film while working on a documentary about Monroe, who died in August 1962 at age 36. A former FBI agent told him about it, and Morgan said he confirmed it by tracking down the son of the FBI informant, who had provided a copy to the FBI.
"I thought the FBI agent was embellishing it for my documentary. I never believed it once until I pulled up the FBI document (referring to the film)," Morgan said.
The late informant's son had the original while the copy remains classified in the FBI files, said Morgan, whose deal was first reported by the New York Post on Monday.
"The FBI agent that I interviewed said J. Edgar Hoover was completely obsessed. A team of nine individuals were analyzing the tape inside a lab. J. Edgar Hoover brought in a few prostitutes who allegedly had been with President Kennedy and they tried to ... see if that was really President Kennedy."
An FBI spokesmen declined to comment except to point out the Monroe files available online, which refer to the film but make no mention of Hoover's purported interest.
(Editing by Sandra Maler)
Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private
By Daniel Trotta
4-14-8
A 15-minute film of Marilyn Monroe engaging in oral sex with an unidentified man will be kept from public view by a New York businessman who has bought it for $1.5 million, the broker of the deal said on Monday.
Memorabilia collector Keya Morgan said he recently arranged the sale of the silent, black-and-white film from the son of a dead FBI informant who possessed it to a wealthy Manhattan businessman who wants to protect Monroe's privacy.
"The gentleman who bought it said out respect for Marilyn he's not going to make a joke of it and put it on the Internet and try to exploit her," said memorabilia collector Keya Morgan. "That's not his intention and I would never get my name involved if that were to happen."
Monroe is clothed and the man's head remains out of the frame for the entire 15 minutes of the film, said Morgan, who watched it.
Monroe was rumored to have had an affair with U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and Morgan said then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, a Kennedy rival, went to great lengths to try to prove it was Kennedy in the film.
One of Monroe's ex-husbands, the late baseball great Joe DiMaggio, once tried to buy it from the collector for $25,000 but "he would not part with it," according to FBI files on Monroe that are available on the FBI Web site.
Morgan is a well-known collector who owns memorabilia from the estates of Monroe and DiMaggio and said he was friends with Monroe's other two husbands, Jim Dougherty and Arthur Miller.
He said he learned of the existence of the film while working on a documentary about Monroe, who died in August 1962 at age 36. A former FBI agent told him about it, and Morgan said he confirmed it by tracking down the son of the FBI informant, who had provided a copy to the FBI.
"I thought the FBI agent was embellishing it for my documentary. I never believed it once until I pulled up the FBI document (referring to the film)," Morgan said.
The late informant's son had the original while the copy remains classified in the FBI files, said Morgan, whose deal was first reported by the New York Post on Monday.
"The FBI agent that I interviewed said J. Edgar Hoover was completely obsessed. A team of nine individuals were analyzing the tape inside a lab. J. Edgar Hoover brought in a few prostitutes who allegedly had been with President Kennedy and they tried to ... see if that was really President Kennedy."
An FBI spokesmen declined to comment except to point out the Monroe files available online, which refer to the film but make no mention of Hoover's purported interest.
(Editing by Sandra Maler)
Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/
Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
Story Highlights
Rise in food prices is "the world's big story," development official warns
World Bank chief warns that rise in prices could set anti-poverty efforts back
Crisis also spurs debate on whether ethanol production is to blame
Riots have occurred in numerous countries recently
(CNN) -- Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world's attention, the head of an agency focused on global development said Monday.
"This is the world's big story," said Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute.
"The finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend," he said on CNN's "American Morning," in a reference to top economic officials who gathered in Washington. "There are riots all over the world in the poor countries ... and, of course, our own poor are feeling it in the United States."
World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said the surging costs could mean "seven lost years" in the fight against worldwide poverty.
"While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day," Zoellick said late last week in a speech opening meetings with finance ministers.
"The international community must fill the at least $500 million food gap identified by the U.N.'s World Food Programme to meet emergency needs," he said. "Governments should be able to come up with this assistance and come up with it now."
The White House announced Monday evening that an estimated $200 million in emergency food aid would be made available through the U.S. Agency for International Development.
"This additional food aid will address the impact of rising commodity prices on U.S. emergency food aid programs, and be used to meet unanticipated food aid needs in Africa and elsewhere," the White House said in a news release.
"In just two months," Zoellick said in his speech, "rice prices have skyrocketed to near historical levels, rising by around 75 percent globally and more in some markets, with more likely to come. In Bangladesh, a 2-kilogram bag of rice ... now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family."
The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent in the past year, he said -- meaning that the price of a loaf of bread has more than doubled in places where the poor spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food.
"This is not just about meals forgone today or about increasing social unrest. This is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth," Zoellick said.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, also spoke at the joint IMF-World Bank spring meeting.
"If food prices go on as they are today, then the consequences on the population in a large set of countries ... will be terrible," he said.
He added that "disruptions may occur in the economic environment ... so that at the end of the day most governments, having done well during the last five or 10 years, will see what they have done totally destroyed, and their legitimacy facing the population destroyed also."
In Haiti, the prime minister was kicked out of office Saturday, and hospital beds are filled with wounded following riots sparked by food prices. Watch Haitians riot over food prices »
The World Bank announced a $10 million grant from the United States for Haiti to help the government assist poor families.
In Egypt, rioters have burned cars and destroyed windows of numerous buildings as police in riot gear have tried to quell protests.
Images from Bangladesh and Mozambique tell a similar story.
In the United States and other Western nations, more and more poor families are feeling the pinch. In recent days, presidential candidates have paid increasing attention to the cost of food, often citing it on the stump.
The issue is also fueling a rising debate over how much the rising prices can be blamed on ethanol production. The basic argument is that because ethanol comes from corn, the push to replace some traditional fuels with ethanol has created a new demand for corn that has thrown off world food prices.
Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, has called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity."
"We've been putting our food into the gas tank -- this corn-to-ethanol subsidy which our government is doing really makes little sense," said Columbia University's Sachs.
Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania over the weekend, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."
Some environmental groups reject the focus on ethanol in examining food prices.
"The contrived food vs. fuel debate has reared its ugly head once again," the Renewable Fuels Association says on its Web site, adding that "numerous statistical analyses have demonstrated that the price of oil -- not corn prices or ethanol production -- has the greatest impact on consumer food prices because it is integral to virtually every phase of food production, from processing to packaging to transportation."
Analysts agree the cost of fuel is among the reasons for the skyrocketing prices.
Another major reason is rising demand, particularly in places in the midst of a population boom, such as China and India.
Also, said Sachs, "climate shocks" are damaging food supply in parts of the world. "You add it all together: Demand is soaring, supply has been cut back, food has been diverted into the gas tank. It's added up to a price explosion."
Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
Story Highlights
Rise in food prices is "the world's big story," development official warns
World Bank chief warns that rise in prices could set anti-poverty efforts back
Crisis also spurs debate on whether ethanol production is to blame
Riots have occurred in numerous countries recently
(CNN) -- Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world's attention, the head of an agency focused on global development said Monday.
"This is the world's big story," said Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute.
"The finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend," he said on CNN's "American Morning," in a reference to top economic officials who gathered in Washington. "There are riots all over the world in the poor countries ... and, of course, our own poor are feeling it in the United States."
World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said the surging costs could mean "seven lost years" in the fight against worldwide poverty.
"While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day," Zoellick said late last week in a speech opening meetings with finance ministers.
"The international community must fill the at least $500 million food gap identified by the U.N.'s World Food Programme to meet emergency needs," he said. "Governments should be able to come up with this assistance and come up with it now."
The White House announced Monday evening that an estimated $200 million in emergency food aid would be made available through the U.S. Agency for International Development.
"This additional food aid will address the impact of rising commodity prices on U.S. emergency food aid programs, and be used to meet unanticipated food aid needs in Africa and elsewhere," the White House said in a news release.
"In just two months," Zoellick said in his speech, "rice prices have skyrocketed to near historical levels, rising by around 75 percent globally and more in some markets, with more likely to come. In Bangladesh, a 2-kilogram bag of rice ... now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family."
The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent in the past year, he said -- meaning that the price of a loaf of bread has more than doubled in places where the poor spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food.
"This is not just about meals forgone today or about increasing social unrest. This is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth," Zoellick said.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, also spoke at the joint IMF-World Bank spring meeting.
"If food prices go on as they are today, then the consequences on the population in a large set of countries ... will be terrible," he said.
He added that "disruptions may occur in the economic environment ... so that at the end of the day most governments, having done well during the last five or 10 years, will see what they have done totally destroyed, and their legitimacy facing the population destroyed also."
In Haiti, the prime minister was kicked out of office Saturday, and hospital beds are filled with wounded following riots sparked by food prices. Watch Haitians riot over food prices »
The World Bank announced a $10 million grant from the United States for Haiti to help the government assist poor families.
In Egypt, rioters have burned cars and destroyed windows of numerous buildings as police in riot gear have tried to quell protests.
Images from Bangladesh and Mozambique tell a similar story.
In the United States and other Western nations, more and more poor families are feeling the pinch. In recent days, presidential candidates have paid increasing attention to the cost of food, often citing it on the stump.
The issue is also fueling a rising debate over how much the rising prices can be blamed on ethanol production. The basic argument is that because ethanol comes from corn, the push to replace some traditional fuels with ethanol has created a new demand for corn that has thrown off world food prices.
Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, has called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity."
"We've been putting our food into the gas tank -- this corn-to-ethanol subsidy which our government is doing really makes little sense," said Columbia University's Sachs.
Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania over the weekend, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."
Some environmental groups reject the focus on ethanol in examining food prices.
"The contrived food vs. fuel debate has reared its ugly head once again," the Renewable Fuels Association says on its Web site, adding that "numerous statistical analyses have demonstrated that the price of oil -- not corn prices or ethanol production -- has the greatest impact on consumer food prices because it is integral to virtually every phase of food production, from processing to packaging to transportation."
Analysts agree the cost of fuel is among the reasons for the skyrocketing prices.
Another major reason is rising demand, particularly in places in the midst of a population boom, such as China and India.
Also, said Sachs, "climate shocks" are damaging food supply in parts of the world. "You add it all together: Demand is soaring, supply has been cut back, food has been diverted into the gas tank. It's added up to a price explosion."
Berlusconi Reclaims Power in Italy
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXQv8MgdVWEOKeUsWyQm0Gcv-xcAD901QF301
Berlusconi Reclaims Power in Italy
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
4-14-8
ROME (AP) — Conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi reclaimed power in key U.S. ally Italy on Monday after clinching decisive victories in both houses of parliament.
The 71-year-old media mogul was congratulated by his main rival, former Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni, who conceded defeat even though the vote counting was still under way.
"The election result is clear even if we wait for the final data," said Veltroni. "It says that the right will govern this country."
Berlusconi, who was in his villa near Milan, made no immediate statement, just waving as he passed in his Mercedes.
In the Senate — a race that had been expected to be close — Berlusconi was projected to win 163 seats compared to 141 for Veltroni. The body has 315 seats.
In the lower house, Berlusconi's conservative bloc was leading with 46 percent of the vote to 39 percent for Veltroni's backers.
In Italy's bicameral system, premiers must have control of both houses to govern.
The victory for Berlusconi is testament to his political longevity — and sees him return to power after two years of center-left rule by Premier Romano Prodi left Italy with a stagnating economy.
This was Berlusconi's fifth consecutive attempt at the premiership — and third win — since 1994, when he stepped into politics from his media empire. He has fended off challenges to his leadership by his conservative allies, survived conflict of interests accusations and criminal trials.
"I think it was a vote against the performance of the Prodi government in the last two years," said Franco Pavoncello, a political science professor at Rome's John Cabot University. "Berlusconi won because he has a strong coalition and because people feel that on the other side, the government is going to take them nowhere."
A sense of malaise hung over the elections as Italians cast ballots Sunday and Monday.
Many Italians are pessimistic that the ruling class — dominated for years by the same key figures — can offer much chance of change. They complain about the poor state of the economy and the fact that their purchasing power has decreased.
Signs of decline abound, from piles of trash in Naples, to a buffalo mozzarella heath scare that has hurt exports and hit one of the country's culinary treasures, to the faltering sale of the state airline Alitalia.
A movement led by comedian-turned-moralizer Beppe Grillo had invited Italians to boycott the vote.
However, turnout was only 4 points behind the last national vote in 2006 — 80 percent compared with 84 percent, according to data from the Interior Ministry.
In his comeback, Berlusconi has been helped by a strong showing by the Northern League, a key ally, which has won about 6 percent of the vote, according to projections.
Berlusconi has no easy task.
A laundry list of problems await him, from cleaning the streets of Naples, which he has indicated is his top priority, to improving an economy that has underperformed the rest of the euro zone for years.
The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the Italian economy, the world's seventh largest, will grow 0.3 percent this year, compared with a 1.4 percent average growth for the 15-country euro area.
Berlusconi will also need to make economic reforms, such as streamlining the decision-making progress and cutting the costs associated with politics. Changes in the election law are also on the agenda.
Berlusconi Reclaims Power in Italy
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
4-14-8
ROME (AP) — Conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi reclaimed power in key U.S. ally Italy on Monday after clinching decisive victories in both houses of parliament.
The 71-year-old media mogul was congratulated by his main rival, former Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni, who conceded defeat even though the vote counting was still under way.
"The election result is clear even if we wait for the final data," said Veltroni. "It says that the right will govern this country."
Berlusconi, who was in his villa near Milan, made no immediate statement, just waving as he passed in his Mercedes.
In the Senate — a race that had been expected to be close — Berlusconi was projected to win 163 seats compared to 141 for Veltroni. The body has 315 seats.
In the lower house, Berlusconi's conservative bloc was leading with 46 percent of the vote to 39 percent for Veltroni's backers.
In Italy's bicameral system, premiers must have control of both houses to govern.
The victory for Berlusconi is testament to his political longevity — and sees him return to power after two years of center-left rule by Premier Romano Prodi left Italy with a stagnating economy.
This was Berlusconi's fifth consecutive attempt at the premiership — and third win — since 1994, when he stepped into politics from his media empire. He has fended off challenges to his leadership by his conservative allies, survived conflict of interests accusations and criminal trials.
"I think it was a vote against the performance of the Prodi government in the last two years," said Franco Pavoncello, a political science professor at Rome's John Cabot University. "Berlusconi won because he has a strong coalition and because people feel that on the other side, the government is going to take them nowhere."
A sense of malaise hung over the elections as Italians cast ballots Sunday and Monday.
Many Italians are pessimistic that the ruling class — dominated for years by the same key figures — can offer much chance of change. They complain about the poor state of the economy and the fact that their purchasing power has decreased.
Signs of decline abound, from piles of trash in Naples, to a buffalo mozzarella heath scare that has hurt exports and hit one of the country's culinary treasures, to the faltering sale of the state airline Alitalia.
A movement led by comedian-turned-moralizer Beppe Grillo had invited Italians to boycott the vote.
However, turnout was only 4 points behind the last national vote in 2006 — 80 percent compared with 84 percent, according to data from the Interior Ministry.
In his comeback, Berlusconi has been helped by a strong showing by the Northern League, a key ally, which has won about 6 percent of the vote, according to projections.
Berlusconi has no easy task.
A laundry list of problems await him, from cleaning the streets of Naples, which he has indicated is his top priority, to improving an economy that has underperformed the rest of the euro zone for years.
The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the Italian economy, the world's seventh largest, will grow 0.3 percent this year, compared with a 1.4 percent average growth for the 15-country euro area.
Berlusconi will also need to make economic reforms, such as streamlining the decision-making progress and cutting the costs associated with politics. Changes in the election law are also on the agenda.
Rocket Racing League announces August takeoff
http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9917928-36.html
April 14, 2008
Rocket Racing League announces August takeoff
Posted by Caroline McCarthy
A Rocket Racer lifts off for a test flight.
NEW YORK--Top Gun and Ender's Game fans take note: Rocket Racing is here.
It'll be like Formula One or Nascar in the sky, or at least that's what the leadership of Rocket Racing said at a press conference at the Yale Club here on Monday morning. The aeronautics entertainment start-up announced the debut of its long-awaited Rocket Racing League, which will have its first exhibition race on August 1-2 at the EAA AirVenture air show in Oshkosh, Wis.
The science fiction-like Rocket Racing pits aircraft called Rocket Racers against one another in a high-speed dash around the sky. The pilots are equipped with 3D helmets and navigation panels to visualize the virtual "raceway" they follow, and spectators on the ground and at home will have access to footage from remote and rocket-mounted cameras. This is accomplished through "cockpit-based augmented reality," which the Rocket Racing League ultimately wants to bring into general aviation as a way to make navigation easier and more efficient for pilots.
Rocket Racing, which hopes to have a formal racing season in 2010, simultaneously announced the acquisition of Florida-based Velocity Aircraft to produce the frame for all its aircraft.
"If you're going to race Ferrari in your league, why not own Ferrari?" Rocket Racing CEO Granger Whitelaw said of the acquisition.
In a hypothetical Rocket Racing event, up to 10 pilots will be racing at a time in a 90-minute race. The aircraft can fly up to 350 miles per hour. "It's great for TV," Whitelaw said. "It'll be very fast, very thrilling. It's all about competition." There will ideally be Rocket Racing video games released to fans in conjunction.
The company also plans to hold exhibition races at the Reno National Championship Air Races in September, the Aviation Nation event in November, and the 2008 X Prize Cup. Six teams have already signed up for the Rocket Racing League's first season, and Whitelaw said that two television networks have already offered deals.
But the announcement itself was a long time coming, and Rocket Racing's short history has been rife with delays. "It's almost now three and a half years since we announced the concept to the media and the world and I've very proud of the incredible progress that's been made by this team," Rocket Racing League co-Chairman Peter Diamandis, who also serves as the CEO of the X Prize Foundation, said at the press event via videoconference. "We waited quite a long time to unveil this, until we were ready."
Indeed, after launching in 2005, "we were very optimistic in hoping to race in 2006," Whitelaw admitted in the press conference. "I take full responsibility for missing our target date. We're about 15 months behind schedule." Ultimately, the Rocket Racing League didn't have its first successful test flight until November 2007.
And the Federal Aviation Administration has not yet given the league the green light. "We have no reason to believe they won't," Whitelaw said. But this is key to the company's promises of safety, which Whitelaw reiterated to an audience that seemed mildly skeptical at the prospect of rocket-powered planes zipping around the sky with spectators on the ground below. "Every plane in every air show has to be approved by the FAA," Whitelaw explained. He added, "We will never be flying directly at (spectators)."
Rocket Racing filed an extensive safety-related patent on Monday."We have the technology today," Whitelaw said.
And on the subject of environmental friendliness, he explained that "we like to say that 95 percent of our fuel is grown on trees." He provided the example of IndyCar, which now powers its vehicles with ethanol, but admitted that some of the Rocket Racing aircraft engines' technology does run on kerosene. But the company is currently looking at using more biofuels "to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and we'll be introducing those when we can."
Topics: NewsTags: aviation,aeronautics,Rocket Racing,Rocket Racing League
April 14, 2008
Rocket Racing League announces August takeoff
Posted by Caroline McCarthy
A Rocket Racer lifts off for a test flight.
NEW YORK--Top Gun and Ender's Game fans take note: Rocket Racing is here.
It'll be like Formula One or Nascar in the sky, or at least that's what the leadership of Rocket Racing said at a press conference at the Yale Club here on Monday morning. The aeronautics entertainment start-up announced the debut of its long-awaited Rocket Racing League, which will have its first exhibition race on August 1-2 at the EAA AirVenture air show in Oshkosh, Wis.
The science fiction-like Rocket Racing pits aircraft called Rocket Racers against one another in a high-speed dash around the sky. The pilots are equipped with 3D helmets and navigation panels to visualize the virtual "raceway" they follow, and spectators on the ground and at home will have access to footage from remote and rocket-mounted cameras. This is accomplished through "cockpit-based augmented reality," which the Rocket Racing League ultimately wants to bring into general aviation as a way to make navigation easier and more efficient for pilots.
Rocket Racing, which hopes to have a formal racing season in 2010, simultaneously announced the acquisition of Florida-based Velocity Aircraft to produce the frame for all its aircraft.
"If you're going to race Ferrari in your league, why not own Ferrari?" Rocket Racing CEO Granger Whitelaw said of the acquisition.
In a hypothetical Rocket Racing event, up to 10 pilots will be racing at a time in a 90-minute race. The aircraft can fly up to 350 miles per hour. "It's great for TV," Whitelaw said. "It'll be very fast, very thrilling. It's all about competition." There will ideally be Rocket Racing video games released to fans in conjunction.
The company also plans to hold exhibition races at the Reno National Championship Air Races in September, the Aviation Nation event in November, and the 2008 X Prize Cup. Six teams have already signed up for the Rocket Racing League's first season, and Whitelaw said that two television networks have already offered deals.
But the announcement itself was a long time coming, and Rocket Racing's short history has been rife with delays. "It's almost now three and a half years since we announced the concept to the media and the world and I've very proud of the incredible progress that's been made by this team," Rocket Racing League co-Chairman Peter Diamandis, who also serves as the CEO of the X Prize Foundation, said at the press event via videoconference. "We waited quite a long time to unveil this, until we were ready."
Indeed, after launching in 2005, "we were very optimistic in hoping to race in 2006," Whitelaw admitted in the press conference. "I take full responsibility for missing our target date. We're about 15 months behind schedule." Ultimately, the Rocket Racing League didn't have its first successful test flight until November 2007.
And the Federal Aviation Administration has not yet given the league the green light. "We have no reason to believe they won't," Whitelaw said. But this is key to the company's promises of safety, which Whitelaw reiterated to an audience that seemed mildly skeptical at the prospect of rocket-powered planes zipping around the sky with spectators on the ground below. "Every plane in every air show has to be approved by the FAA," Whitelaw explained. He added, "We will never be flying directly at (spectators)."
Rocket Racing filed an extensive safety-related patent on Monday."We have the technology today," Whitelaw said.
And on the subject of environmental friendliness, he explained that "we like to say that 95 percent of our fuel is grown on trees." He provided the example of IndyCar, which now powers its vehicles with ethanol, but admitted that some of the Rocket Racing aircraft engines' technology does run on kerosene. But the company is currently looking at using more biofuels "to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and we'll be introducing those when we can."
Topics: NewsTags: aviation,aeronautics,Rocket Racing,Rocket Racing League
Dwight Eisenhower Guildhall Address, 1945
In honor of Patriots Day, compare the opening of Ike's speech in London in 1945 to Bush pumping his fist and saying, "Feels good!" before announcing the start of the Iraq War.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19450612%20guildhall.htm
Dwight Eisenhower
Guildhall Address
London, England
June 12, 1945
The high sense of distinction I feel in receiving this great honor from the city of London is inescapably mingled with feelings of profound sadness. All of us must always regret that your great country and mine were ever faced with the tragic situation that compelled the appointment of an Allied Commander-in-Chief, the capacity in which I have just been so extravagantly commended.
Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.
Conceivably a commander may have been professionally superior. He may have given everything of his heart and mind to meet the spiritual and physical needs of his comrades. He may have written a chapter that will glow forever in the pages of military history.
Still, even such a man--if he existed--would sadly face the facts that his honors cannot hide in his memories the crosses marking the resting places of the dead. They cannot soothe the anguish of the widow or the orphan whose husband or father will not return.
The only attitude in which a commander may with satisfaction receive the tributes of his friends is in the humble acknowledgment that no matter how unworthy he may be, his position is the symbol of great human forces that have labored arduously and successfully for a righteous cause. Unless he feels this symbolism and this rightness in what he has tried to do, then he is disregardful of courage, fortitude and devotion of the vast multitudes he has been honored to command. If all Allied men and women that have served with me in this war can only know that it is they whom this august body is really honoring today, then indeed I will be content.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19450612%20guildhall.htm
Dwight Eisenhower
Guildhall Address
London, England
June 12, 1945
The high sense of distinction I feel in receiving this great honor from the city of London is inescapably mingled with feelings of profound sadness. All of us must always regret that your great country and mine were ever faced with the tragic situation that compelled the appointment of an Allied Commander-in-Chief, the capacity in which I have just been so extravagantly commended.
Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.
Conceivably a commander may have been professionally superior. He may have given everything of his heart and mind to meet the spiritual and physical needs of his comrades. He may have written a chapter that will glow forever in the pages of military history.
Still, even such a man--if he existed--would sadly face the facts that his honors cannot hide in his memories the crosses marking the resting places of the dead. They cannot soothe the anguish of the widow or the orphan whose husband or father will not return.
The only attitude in which a commander may with satisfaction receive the tributes of his friends is in the humble acknowledgment that no matter how unworthy he may be, his position is the symbol of great human forces that have labored arduously and successfully for a righteous cause. Unless he feels this symbolism and this rightness in what he has tried to do, then he is disregardful of courage, fortitude and devotion of the vast multitudes he has been honored to command. If all Allied men and women that have served with me in this war can only know that it is they whom this august body is really honoring today, then indeed I will be content.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
US media, Clinton assail Obama for “bitter” truth
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/obam-a14.shtml
US media, Clinton assail Obama for “bitter” truth
By Patrick Martin
14 April 2008
The American media and the political rivals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opened fire on the Illinois senator this weekend after he committed the unpardonable offense of speaking the truth, or at least a part of it, about the bitterness among working class Americans over the steady erosion of their living standards and jobs.
Obama’s comments at a closed-door fundraising event in San Francisco were reported Friday on the Huffington Post political blog. He was asked by supporters why he was trailing Senator Hillary Clinton in polls in Pennsylvania, where a state-wide primary takes place on April 22.
“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” Obama said. “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama had just completed a six-day bus trip across Pennsylvania, which included dozens of town hall meetings in small towns, rather than the rallies in huge arenas that have been a feature of his campaign in other states. As a result, he engaged in face-to-face discussion with hundreds of working class voters, who told him stories of plant closings, lack of opportunity for their children, and countless broken promises from Democratic and Republican politicians alike.
Apparently, the Democratic senator is guilty of a double offense against the norms of contemporary American electoral politics: He allowed real-life experiences of social deprivation to affect him, and then spoke frankly in front of an audience, albeit a privileged one at a private fundraiser, of the economic realities of American society.
He compounded this political sin with the suggestion that religion, gun rights, economic protectionism and anti-immigrant agitation were used to divert working people from the economic oppression they face.
The response from the American media, once his remarks were published, was immediate and hostile. Obama was guilty of a “blunder,” he had “offended” rural America, he faced “a full-blown political disaster.” A commentary on the influential web site politico.com said, “this is a potential turning point for Obama’s campaign,” one that could result in the loss of the Democratic nomination to New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
It is instructive to compare this reaction to the treatment of the speech on race relations that Obama delivered last month in response to controversial comments made by the ex-pastor of his Chicago church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The bulk of the media treated Obama’s address favorably—an indication that in the America of 2008, class divisions are a much more sensitive issue than race.
Nothing that Obama said was a surprise to the media pundits or his political rivals. If anything, he understated the level of bitterness in rural and small-town America, since he left out one of the most important factors in fueling popular anger—the war in Iraq, which has taken a disproportionate toll in these communities, where a far higher percentage of young people volunteer for the military than in urban or suburban areas.
Republican political strategists have relied for years on appeals to religious sentiments—“God, gays and guns,” in the parlance of political consultants—to win support among voters whose jobs and living standards have been devastated by the decline of American industry and the unrestrained “free market” policies of successive Republican and Democratic administrations.
Thomas Frank wrote a best-selling book four years ago (What’s the Matter with Kansas?), which examined this process in his home state, and his conclusions about the use of coded appeals to religion to induce voters to ignore their own economic interests have become conventional wisdom in ruling class political and media circles.
While Frank’s book had certain insights into American culture and politics, he ignored the most fundamental factor enabling the Republican appeals to prejudice and backwardness to produce electoral successes—the drastic shift by the Democratic Party to the right and its abandonment of any policies to alleviate economic inequality or improve living conditions for working people.
Spokesmen for the campaign of the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, denounced Obama for “dismissing” the “values” and “American traditions” that “have contributed to the identity and greatness of this country.”
The response of the Clinton campaign to Obama’s remarks was no less reactionary. Her spokesman accused Obama of “offending small town America,” adding, “Americans are tired of a president who looks down on them—they want a president who will stand up for them for a change. The Americans who live in small towns are optimistic, hardworking and resilient.”
At a rally in North Carolina, Clinton campaign workers handed out stickers bearing the motto, “I’m not bitter.”
The candidate herself declared, “I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small town America. Senator Obama’s remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.”
The charge of “elitism” is remarkable coming from Mrs. Clinton, who last week released tax returns showing that she and the former president had raked in $109 million in income over the past seven years, putting them squarely in the top .01 percent of American society.
Clinton went on to identify herself with religion and patriotic values. “I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies,” she said. (The 60-year-old candidate grew up in the 1950s, the years of the McCarthy witch-hunt, Cold War conformism and the domination of racial oppression in the American South.)
“I grew up in a church-going family,” she continued, “a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling’ to religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”
Obama’s initial reaction to the barrage of criticism was to reiterate his views at a town hall meeting in Indiana, where, as a Washington Post reporter described it, “he repeated the offending word [“bitter”] three times.” He ridiculed Clinton for denying that working-class people in Pennsylvania are resentful over the state of the economy, and he called both McCain and Clinton “out of touch” for their apparent lack of understanding of the growing anger against the political establishment.
“People are fed up,” Obama said. “They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.”
By the following day, however, Obama had begun to change his tune and back away from this too-blunt assessment of the popular mood in America—and above all from any implied criticism of the role of religion. “I didn’t say it as well as I could have,” he told a campaign rally in Muncie, Indiana. In an interview with the Raleigh News & Observer, he said, “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”
By Sunday, he was in full contrition mode, prostrating himself before those who accused him of offending the religiously devout, although he continued to assert his original statement that there is widespread alienation in rural and small town America.
It remains to be seen whether the political furor of the last few days has a lasting effect on the outcome of the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, or the November election contest. But the episode has been a revealing exposure of both the media and the political establishment.
The near-unanimous consensus that Obama has committed a huge blunder by referring to working class bitterness and resentment has two sources: the enormous social distance of the millionaire pundits and politicians from the real lives of working people, and the fear that under conditions of convulsions in the financial markets and the onset of a deep recession, any discussion of the underlying social antagonisms in America has potentially explosive consequences.
US media, Clinton assail Obama for “bitter” truth
By Patrick Martin
14 April 2008
The American media and the political rivals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opened fire on the Illinois senator this weekend after he committed the unpardonable offense of speaking the truth, or at least a part of it, about the bitterness among working class Americans over the steady erosion of their living standards and jobs.
Obama’s comments at a closed-door fundraising event in San Francisco were reported Friday on the Huffington Post political blog. He was asked by supporters why he was trailing Senator Hillary Clinton in polls in Pennsylvania, where a state-wide primary takes place on April 22.
“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” Obama said. “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama had just completed a six-day bus trip across Pennsylvania, which included dozens of town hall meetings in small towns, rather than the rallies in huge arenas that have been a feature of his campaign in other states. As a result, he engaged in face-to-face discussion with hundreds of working class voters, who told him stories of plant closings, lack of opportunity for their children, and countless broken promises from Democratic and Republican politicians alike.
Apparently, the Democratic senator is guilty of a double offense against the norms of contemporary American electoral politics: He allowed real-life experiences of social deprivation to affect him, and then spoke frankly in front of an audience, albeit a privileged one at a private fundraiser, of the economic realities of American society.
He compounded this political sin with the suggestion that religion, gun rights, economic protectionism and anti-immigrant agitation were used to divert working people from the economic oppression they face.
The response from the American media, once his remarks were published, was immediate and hostile. Obama was guilty of a “blunder,” he had “offended” rural America, he faced “a full-blown political disaster.” A commentary on the influential web site politico.com said, “this is a potential turning point for Obama’s campaign,” one that could result in the loss of the Democratic nomination to New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
It is instructive to compare this reaction to the treatment of the speech on race relations that Obama delivered last month in response to controversial comments made by the ex-pastor of his Chicago church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The bulk of the media treated Obama’s address favorably—an indication that in the America of 2008, class divisions are a much more sensitive issue than race.
Nothing that Obama said was a surprise to the media pundits or his political rivals. If anything, he understated the level of bitterness in rural and small-town America, since he left out one of the most important factors in fueling popular anger—the war in Iraq, which has taken a disproportionate toll in these communities, where a far higher percentage of young people volunteer for the military than in urban or suburban areas.
Republican political strategists have relied for years on appeals to religious sentiments—“God, gays and guns,” in the parlance of political consultants—to win support among voters whose jobs and living standards have been devastated by the decline of American industry and the unrestrained “free market” policies of successive Republican and Democratic administrations.
Thomas Frank wrote a best-selling book four years ago (What’s the Matter with Kansas?), which examined this process in his home state, and his conclusions about the use of coded appeals to religion to induce voters to ignore their own economic interests have become conventional wisdom in ruling class political and media circles.
While Frank’s book had certain insights into American culture and politics, he ignored the most fundamental factor enabling the Republican appeals to prejudice and backwardness to produce electoral successes—the drastic shift by the Democratic Party to the right and its abandonment of any policies to alleviate economic inequality or improve living conditions for working people.
Spokesmen for the campaign of the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, denounced Obama for “dismissing” the “values” and “American traditions” that “have contributed to the identity and greatness of this country.”
The response of the Clinton campaign to Obama’s remarks was no less reactionary. Her spokesman accused Obama of “offending small town America,” adding, “Americans are tired of a president who looks down on them—they want a president who will stand up for them for a change. The Americans who live in small towns are optimistic, hardworking and resilient.”
At a rally in North Carolina, Clinton campaign workers handed out stickers bearing the motto, “I’m not bitter.”
The candidate herself declared, “I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small town America. Senator Obama’s remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.”
The charge of “elitism” is remarkable coming from Mrs. Clinton, who last week released tax returns showing that she and the former president had raked in $109 million in income over the past seven years, putting them squarely in the top .01 percent of American society.
Clinton went on to identify herself with religion and patriotic values. “I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies,” she said. (The 60-year-old candidate grew up in the 1950s, the years of the McCarthy witch-hunt, Cold War conformism and the domination of racial oppression in the American South.)
“I grew up in a church-going family,” she continued, “a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling’ to religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”
Obama’s initial reaction to the barrage of criticism was to reiterate his views at a town hall meeting in Indiana, where, as a Washington Post reporter described it, “he repeated the offending word [“bitter”] three times.” He ridiculed Clinton for denying that working-class people in Pennsylvania are resentful over the state of the economy, and he called both McCain and Clinton “out of touch” for their apparent lack of understanding of the growing anger against the political establishment.
“People are fed up,” Obama said. “They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.”
By the following day, however, Obama had begun to change his tune and back away from this too-blunt assessment of the popular mood in America—and above all from any implied criticism of the role of religion. “I didn’t say it as well as I could have,” he told a campaign rally in Muncie, Indiana. In an interview with the Raleigh News & Observer, he said, “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”
By Sunday, he was in full contrition mode, prostrating himself before those who accused him of offending the religiously devout, although he continued to assert his original statement that there is widespread alienation in rural and small town America.
It remains to be seen whether the political furor of the last few days has a lasting effect on the outcome of the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, or the November election contest. But the episode has been a revealing exposure of both the media and the political establishment.
The near-unanimous consensus that Obama has committed a huge blunder by referring to working class bitterness and resentment has two sources: the enormous social distance of the millionaire pundits and politicians from the real lives of working people, and the fear that under conditions of convulsions in the financial markets and the onset of a deep recession, any discussion of the underlying social antagonisms in America has potentially explosive consequences.
White House ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/04/12/turley-bush-torture-conspirators-like-a-meeting-of-the-bada-bing-club/
Turley: White House Torture Planning Was Like a ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
Jon Ponder Apr. 12, 2008
Suggests Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other White House Officials Committed War Crimes
In the 1990s, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert, was a strong advocate for impeaching Pres. Bill Clinton because Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky while under oath in a deposition for a civil lawsuit.
The issue today is far more serious. According to ABC News, starting in 2002, senior Bush officials, including Vice President Cheney and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser, were involved hands-on in drafting torture guidelines for the CIA. Because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, Jonathan Turley says he believes the drafting of these guidelines was a war crime.
Late Friday afternoon, George Bush confirmed to ABC News that Cheney, Rice and the other officials — including then Sec. of State Colin Powell, then Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, then Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and their aides — were working at his behest.
This new development — the president’s admission that he commissioned alleged war crimes — is being ignored in the media today (Saturday). It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the Sunday political shows, including even ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous.”
The transcript for Turley’s “Countdown” interview follows:
OLBERMANN: What if the step-by-step and case-by-case details of the torture of detainees had been discussed at the highest levels of government, inside the White House? It might prove to be the core to unraveling an entire administration‘s policy on torture. It might even one day find its way into a trial of war criminals. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, such meetings were regular occurrences in the Bush White House.
The group called itself the National Security Principals Committee. It held dozens of top-secret decisions in the White House. This according to an ABC News investigation, sourced with unnamed, high-ranking officials. The Principals included Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, also the CIA Director at the time, George Tenet, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who according to a top official said, quote, why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.
The Principals signed off on exactly how the CIA would interrogate supposed top al Qaeda suspects and approved of combined techniques, including, but not limited to, water boarding. A choreography, if you will. Such meetings began in the spring of 2002, according to the ABC report, after the CIA had captured a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, who the CIA has since confirmed was one of the three al Qaeda suspects who were, indeed, water boarded.
All the Principals present approved at each discussion, reportedly, yet the CIA wanted the principals to sign off on each case, each time. When then director George Tenet sometimes made elaborate presentations, and that was even after a so-called golden shield was issued—that was in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department giving formal legal authority to government interrogators to use enhanced interrogation techniques.
Let‘s turn now to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Jon, good evening.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If this is accurate or nearly accurate, what is the fullest interruption, as you see it, of what went on in those meetings?
TURLEY: This is one meeting of principal. They‘re not talking about the LE kind. What you have are a bunch of people talking about what is something that‘s a crime. For those of us who look at the criminal code and see torture for what it is, this is like a meeting of the Bada Bing club. These people are sitting around regularly talking about something defined as a crime.
Then you have John Ashcroft standing up and saying, maybe we shouldn‘t be talking about this at the White House. Well, obviously, that‘s quite disturbing. It shows that this was a program, not just some incident, not just someone going too far. It was a torture program, implemented by the United States of America and approved as the very highest level. And it goes right to the president‘s desk.
And it‘s notable that this group wanted to get lawyers to sign off on this, and they found those lawyers, people like Jay Buyby (ph), and John Yoo. And those people were handsomely rewarded. In Buyby‘s case, he became a federal judge after signing off on a rather grotesque memo that said that they could do everything short of causing organ failure or death.
OLBERMANN: The point that you made up—mentioned there that Attorney General Ashcroft said, why do this in the White House, why do it at such a high level; between the location and the resumes, you said it goes to President Bush‘s desk here. Is it the smoking gun that President Bush authorized torture by the United States of America?
TURLEY: We really don‘t have much of a question about the president‘s role here. He‘s never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He, in fact, early on in his presidency—he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that he was aware of this. The doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do anything about it.
OLBERMANN: The meetings, obviously, were not conducted to serve the purposes of historians or those of us who analyze this situation. It looks like it was 100 percent CYA. The question I have here, am I reading this right; did the lower-level interrogators, did the lower-level people in that food chain of principals, people like the director of the CIA, come out ranked a lot lower than, say, the vice president of United States in any kind of ceding of cabinet positions—were they there to protect themselves at the cost of the most powerful people in the nation? In other words, did they play these people? Did they—who was being protected here?
TURLEY: Well, you know, as a criminal defense attorney, we call meetings like this meetings of the designated defendant, because they are people who are signing off and will have to bear witness and bear responsibility. And here you have the CIA, which is basically saying, we‘re not going to have a repeat of the 1970s, where you guys have us go exploding cigars and trying to take out leaders and then you say you didn‘t know about it.
So the CIA has learned a lot. So these meetings certainly cover them in that respect. And they establish a rather clear record, that this was a program that was done with intention, knowingly done, and repeatedly a subject for meetings at the White House itself.
OLBERMANN: If there‘s a paper trail regarding this, John, is this—is this a war crimes trial waiting to happen somewhere some day?
TURLEY: It‘s always been a war crimes trial ready to happen. But Congress is like a convention of Claude Raines actors. Everyone‘s saying, we‘re shocked, shocked; there‘s torture being discussed in the White House. But no one is doing anything about it. So what we have is the need for someone to get off the theater and move to the actual in going and trying to investigate these crimes.
OLBERMANN: And all the attorneys talk about movie characters; they‘re all Burt Lancaster, the Ernst Janning character in “Judgment at Nuremberg,” all the people who authorized this. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University I‘ll save you a seat down front if we ever have this trial.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Topics: Impeachment, Worst President Ever, Torture
Turley: White House Torture Planning Was Like a ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
Jon Ponder Apr. 12, 2008
Suggests Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other White House Officials Committed War Crimes
In the 1990s, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert, was a strong advocate for impeaching Pres. Bill Clinton because Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky while under oath in a deposition for a civil lawsuit.
The issue today is far more serious. According to ABC News, starting in 2002, senior Bush officials, including Vice President Cheney and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser, were involved hands-on in drafting torture guidelines for the CIA. Because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, Jonathan Turley says he believes the drafting of these guidelines was a war crime.
Late Friday afternoon, George Bush confirmed to ABC News that Cheney, Rice and the other officials — including then Sec. of State Colin Powell, then Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, then Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and their aides — were working at his behest.
This new development — the president’s admission that he commissioned alleged war crimes — is being ignored in the media today (Saturday). It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the Sunday political shows, including even ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous.”
The transcript for Turley’s “Countdown” interview follows:
OLBERMANN: What if the step-by-step and case-by-case details of the torture of detainees had been discussed at the highest levels of government, inside the White House? It might prove to be the core to unraveling an entire administration‘s policy on torture. It might even one day find its way into a trial of war criminals. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, such meetings were regular occurrences in the Bush White House.
The group called itself the National Security Principals Committee. It held dozens of top-secret decisions in the White House. This according to an ABC News investigation, sourced with unnamed, high-ranking officials. The Principals included Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, also the CIA Director at the time, George Tenet, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who according to a top official said, quote, why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.
The Principals signed off on exactly how the CIA would interrogate supposed top al Qaeda suspects and approved of combined techniques, including, but not limited to, water boarding. A choreography, if you will. Such meetings began in the spring of 2002, according to the ABC report, after the CIA had captured a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, who the CIA has since confirmed was one of the three al Qaeda suspects who were, indeed, water boarded.
All the Principals present approved at each discussion, reportedly, yet the CIA wanted the principals to sign off on each case, each time. When then director George Tenet sometimes made elaborate presentations, and that was even after a so-called golden shield was issued—that was in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department giving formal legal authority to government interrogators to use enhanced interrogation techniques.
Let‘s turn now to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Jon, good evening.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If this is accurate or nearly accurate, what is the fullest interruption, as you see it, of what went on in those meetings?
TURLEY: This is one meeting of principal. They‘re not talking about the LE kind. What you have are a bunch of people talking about what is something that‘s a crime. For those of us who look at the criminal code and see torture for what it is, this is like a meeting of the Bada Bing club. These people are sitting around regularly talking about something defined as a crime.
Then you have John Ashcroft standing up and saying, maybe we shouldn‘t be talking about this at the White House. Well, obviously, that‘s quite disturbing. It shows that this was a program, not just some incident, not just someone going too far. It was a torture program, implemented by the United States of America and approved as the very highest level. And it goes right to the president‘s desk.
And it‘s notable that this group wanted to get lawyers to sign off on this, and they found those lawyers, people like Jay Buyby (ph), and John Yoo. And those people were handsomely rewarded. In Buyby‘s case, he became a federal judge after signing off on a rather grotesque memo that said that they could do everything short of causing organ failure or death.
OLBERMANN: The point that you made up—mentioned there that Attorney General Ashcroft said, why do this in the White House, why do it at such a high level; between the location and the resumes, you said it goes to President Bush‘s desk here. Is it the smoking gun that President Bush authorized torture by the United States of America?
TURLEY: We really don‘t have much of a question about the president‘s role here. He‘s never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He, in fact, early on in his presidency—he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that he was aware of this. The doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do anything about it.
OLBERMANN: The meetings, obviously, were not conducted to serve the purposes of historians or those of us who analyze this situation. It looks like it was 100 percent CYA. The question I have here, am I reading this right; did the lower-level interrogators, did the lower-level people in that food chain of principals, people like the director of the CIA, come out ranked a lot lower than, say, the vice president of United States in any kind of ceding of cabinet positions—were they there to protect themselves at the cost of the most powerful people in the nation? In other words, did they play these people? Did they—who was being protected here?
TURLEY: Well, you know, as a criminal defense attorney, we call meetings like this meetings of the designated defendant, because they are people who are signing off and will have to bear witness and bear responsibility. And here you have the CIA, which is basically saying, we‘re not going to have a repeat of the 1970s, where you guys have us go exploding cigars and trying to take out leaders and then you say you didn‘t know about it.
So the CIA has learned a lot. So these meetings certainly cover them in that respect. And they establish a rather clear record, that this was a program that was done with intention, knowingly done, and repeatedly a subject for meetings at the White House itself.
OLBERMANN: If there‘s a paper trail regarding this, John, is this—is this a war crimes trial waiting to happen somewhere some day?
TURLEY: It‘s always been a war crimes trial ready to happen. But Congress is like a convention of Claude Raines actors. Everyone‘s saying, we‘re shocked, shocked; there‘s torture being discussed in the White House. But no one is doing anything about it. So what we have is the need for someone to get off the theater and move to the actual in going and trying to investigate these crimes.
OLBERMANN: And all the attorneys talk about movie characters; they‘re all Burt Lancaster, the Ernst Janning character in “Judgment at Nuremberg,” all the people who authorized this. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University I‘ll save you a seat down front if we ever have this trial.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Topics: Impeachment, Worst President Ever, Torture
Chupacabras? - Four Sheep Killed In Mexico
http://www.rense.com/general81/shp.htm
Chupacabras? - Four Sheep Killed In Mexico
From Scott Corrales
Inexplicata - The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
4-11-8
Source: Fundacion Cosmos A.C.
and www.yucatan.com.mx
April 11, 2008
Mexico: Hairy Creature Attacks Sheep in Pustunich
PUSTUNICH, Ticul -- The bizarre deaths of four sheep in a small ranch of this community has caused trepidation among local residents, as there are those who claim that the "Chupacabras" is to blame.
Some locals claim having seen "a hairy animal standing nearly 2 meters tall" in the dark of night.
This situation has caused the town's habitual repose to be interrupted, especially that of the ranch's owner, who has even decided not to breed any more animals to avoid attracting the strange entity.
According to the facts, the strange deaths of four sheep occurred only a few days ago on the property of Ligia Couoh, on Calle 27 between 16 and 18.
"The animals showed no signs of being tortured, they only had two deep holes in the neck. There wasn't even any blood spilled on the soil. On that day the animal attached the three sheep and must've filled itself with blood, as the [fourth sheep] only had a scratch on it. However, on the next day, that last animal turned up dead . That was my last sheep, and that creature came back in the night to kill it."
"I told the police and a veterinarian came to inspect the animal. She said that the holes were deep and made by fangs that are curved, rather than straight."
Mrs. Couoh says that the animal that killed her sheep must fly, as she saw blood spattered in different locations.
"Perhaps it's the Chupacabras, as my neighbors have heard the screams of strange animals at night -- and seen them -- since my sheep were killed. That day I was overcome with fear. I was even paralyzed by the way in which my animals were killed. I've been living here for 47 years and had never seen or heard of animals being slain like this."
Ligia Couoh says that the several families have seen a strange entity standing two meters tall in the night, and they say it's like a bear.
Other residents of the locality say that ducks and turkeys have also been drained of blood.
(Translation (c) 2008, S. Corrales, IHU. Special thanks to Leopoldo Zambrano, Fundacion Cosmos AC)
Chupacabras? - Four Sheep Killed In Mexico
From Scott Corrales
Inexplicata - The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
4-11-8
Source: Fundacion Cosmos A.C.
and www.yucatan.com.mx
April 11, 2008
Mexico: Hairy Creature Attacks Sheep in Pustunich
PUSTUNICH, Ticul -- The bizarre deaths of four sheep in a small ranch of this community has caused trepidation among local residents, as there are those who claim that the "Chupacabras" is to blame.
Some locals claim having seen "a hairy animal standing nearly 2 meters tall" in the dark of night.
This situation has caused the town's habitual repose to be interrupted, especially that of the ranch's owner, who has even decided not to breed any more animals to avoid attracting the strange entity.
According to the facts, the strange deaths of four sheep occurred only a few days ago on the property of Ligia Couoh, on Calle 27 between 16 and 18.
"The animals showed no signs of being tortured, they only had two deep holes in the neck. There wasn't even any blood spilled on the soil. On that day the animal attached the three sheep and must've filled itself with blood, as the [fourth sheep] only had a scratch on it. However, on the next day, that last animal turned up dead . That was my last sheep, and that creature came back in the night to kill it."
"I told the police and a veterinarian came to inspect the animal. She said that the holes were deep and made by fangs that are curved, rather than straight."
Mrs. Couoh says that the animal that killed her sheep must fly, as she saw blood spattered in different locations.
"Perhaps it's the Chupacabras, as my neighbors have heard the screams of strange animals at night -- and seen them -- since my sheep were killed. That day I was overcome with fear. I was even paralyzed by the way in which my animals were killed. I've been living here for 47 years and had never seen or heard of animals being slain like this."
Ligia Couoh says that the several families have seen a strange entity standing two meters tall in the night, and they say it's like a bear.
Other residents of the locality say that ducks and turkeys have also been drained of blood.
(Translation (c) 2008, S. Corrales, IHU. Special thanks to Leopoldo Zambrano, Fundacion Cosmos AC)
Siegelman: 'Electronically Stolen' 2002 Election
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5889
Former AL Gov. Don Siegelman Says Media Ignoring Details of His 'Electronically Stolen' 2002 Election
Has Given Story to 60 Minutes, Dan Abrams, LA Times, WaPo... All Have Failed to Report His Allegations While Covering Other Aspects of His Story...
Posted By Brad Friedman On 11th April 2008
Election Irregularities, Election Fraud, Alabama, Election 2002, Mainstream Media Failure, Don Siegelman 14 Comments
Still paging Dan Abrams...
The following email comes from Mark Crispin Miller, NYU media professor, and author of the landmark election integrity book, FOOLED AGAIN [1].
It includes an email exchange from yesterday with the finally-free-on-bond former Democratic Governor of Alabama Don Siegelman, concerning his allegations that his 2002 election was electronically flipped.
Yesterday I emailed Don Siegelman, as I had a few matters to discuss with him.
Here's the crucial part:
At 12:12 AM -0400 4/9/08, Mark Crispin Miller wrote:
The other, more important thing is this: As you may or may not know, the one aspect of your long ordeal that the press has stubbornly refused to mention -- or, I think, even to perceive -- is the theft of that election in 2002. Like you, I believe that that was crucial; but the press, quite typically, won't mention it. Frankly, I believe that they, and most leading Democrats, are in denial about it, as its implications are too frightening. Just as they've looked away from all the evidence of vast election fraud throughout Bush/Cheney's reign, therefore, they've also looked away from the subversion of that gubernatorial race in Alabama. And so that chapter of your story is unknown to most Americans, even those who've lately heard the rest of it.
Here is his reply:
Mark, I mention the vote stealing in every interview. 60 Minutes cut it out. Don Abrams didn't want to go there either. I have told the story to the Washington Post and LA Times.
The hook is Rove's fingerprints are found there too. First, in that Rove's friend Jack Abramoff hires Dan Gans,was in charge of " electronic ballot security" in Baldwin County, Alabama,where the votes were stolen. Gans, working for the Alexander Strategies Group, claims credit for the win on his website, which he then takes down when Abramoff gets arrested. The second is Rove's business partner, Kitty Mc Cullough (a/k/a Kelly Kimbrough) is given credit for the electronic vote switch by the state Republican Party.
I asked Don if I could send that out, and he said yes ("Have at it"). So now I offer it to you. If you're an election reform activist, please start your (search) engines. If you're a journalist, please do your job. And if you're just another patriotic citizen, please do whatever you can do to get the press, and/or the Democratic Party, to pay heed.
For starters, how about asking "60 Minutes" why they "cut it out," and asking Dan Abrams why he "didn't want to go there either"? And since Don also told the Washington Post and LA Times about the theft of that election, how about we ask them, too?
This stuff will just keep on happening, until we make it dangerous to do such things.
MCM
So, um, yeah...what's the holdup these media outlets have in reporting on this? This is a state Governor, for crying out loud, making these allegations, about his own 2002 election. Isn't that newsworthy enough? Particularly given all the evidence to suggest he was later seriously railroaded, framed and sent to prison in AL by his opponents?
Oh, and then there's the fact that the DoJ --- in an unprecedented move --- ordered control of Alabama's elections to move from the Democratic SoS over to the Republican Governor's office (the same Republican Gov. that Siegelman accuses of stealing the '02 election) in 2006, as we discussed in some detail [2] recently.
One would think Siegelman's allegations themselves --- just the fact that he's making them --- would be newsworthy. God forbid any of the corporate media folks he's spoken with go out and do any actual investigation on them.
Seriously.
URLs in this post:
[1] FOOLED AGAIN: http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFooled-Again-Real-Electoral-Reform%2Fdp%2F0465045804%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1207937569%26sr%3D8-1&tag=tbb-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
[2] we discussed in some detail: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5878
Former AL Gov. Don Siegelman Says Media Ignoring Details of His 'Electronically Stolen' 2002 Election
Has Given Story to 60 Minutes, Dan Abrams, LA Times, WaPo... All Have Failed to Report His Allegations While Covering Other Aspects of His Story...
Posted By Brad Friedman On 11th April 2008
Election Irregularities, Election Fraud, Alabama, Election 2002, Mainstream Media Failure, Don Siegelman 14 Comments
Still paging Dan Abrams...
The following email comes from Mark Crispin Miller, NYU media professor, and author of the landmark election integrity book, FOOLED AGAIN [1].
It includes an email exchange from yesterday with the finally-free-on-bond former Democratic Governor of Alabama Don Siegelman, concerning his allegations that his 2002 election was electronically flipped.
Yesterday I emailed Don Siegelman, as I had a few matters to discuss with him.
Here's the crucial part:
At 12:12 AM -0400 4/9/08, Mark Crispin Miller wrote:
The other, more important thing is this: As you may or may not know, the one aspect of your long ordeal that the press has stubbornly refused to mention -- or, I think, even to perceive -- is the theft of that election in 2002. Like you, I believe that that was crucial; but the press, quite typically, won't mention it. Frankly, I believe that they, and most leading Democrats, are in denial about it, as its implications are too frightening. Just as they've looked away from all the evidence of vast election fraud throughout Bush/Cheney's reign, therefore, they've also looked away from the subversion of that gubernatorial race in Alabama. And so that chapter of your story is unknown to most Americans, even those who've lately heard the rest of it.
Here is his reply:
Mark, I mention the vote stealing in every interview. 60 Minutes cut it out. Don Abrams didn't want to go there either. I have told the story to the Washington Post and LA Times.
The hook is Rove's fingerprints are found there too. First, in that Rove's friend Jack Abramoff hires Dan Gans,was in charge of " electronic ballot security" in Baldwin County, Alabama,where the votes were stolen. Gans, working for the Alexander Strategies Group, claims credit for the win on his website, which he then takes down when Abramoff gets arrested. The second is Rove's business partner, Kitty Mc Cullough (a/k/a Kelly Kimbrough) is given credit for the electronic vote switch by the state Republican Party.
I asked Don if I could send that out, and he said yes ("Have at it"). So now I offer it to you. If you're an election reform activist, please start your (search) engines. If you're a journalist, please do your job. And if you're just another patriotic citizen, please do whatever you can do to get the press, and/or the Democratic Party, to pay heed.
For starters, how about asking "60 Minutes" why they "cut it out," and asking Dan Abrams why he "didn't want to go there either"? And since Don also told the Washington Post and LA Times about the theft of that election, how about we ask them, too?
This stuff will just keep on happening, until we make it dangerous to do such things.
MCM
So, um, yeah...what's the holdup these media outlets have in reporting on this? This is a state Governor, for crying out loud, making these allegations, about his own 2002 election. Isn't that newsworthy enough? Particularly given all the evidence to suggest he was later seriously railroaded, framed and sent to prison in AL by his opponents?
Oh, and then there's the fact that the DoJ --- in an unprecedented move --- ordered control of Alabama's elections to move from the Democratic SoS over to the Republican Governor's office (the same Republican Gov. that Siegelman accuses of stealing the '02 election) in 2006, as we discussed in some detail [2] recently.
One would think Siegelman's allegations themselves --- just the fact that he's making them --- would be newsworthy. God forbid any of the corporate media folks he's spoken with go out and do any actual investigation on them.
Seriously.
URLs in this post:
[1] FOOLED AGAIN: http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFooled-Again-Real-Electoral-Reform%2Fdp%2F0465045804%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1207937569%26sr%3D8-1&tag=tbb-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
[2] we discussed in some detail: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5878
Monday, April 14, 2008
NFL owners pass some proposals, ignore others
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflmeetings
NFL owners pass some proposals, ignore others at annual meetings
By BARRY WILNER, AP Football Writer
Apr 3, 2008
PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — The coin toss was altered and the playoffs weren’t touched.
Hate forceouts? They’re gone.
Afraid of more looks by referees at instant replay. These might be worthwhile.
A busy NFL owners meetings ended Wednesday with a show of hands that made it obvious reseeding the playoffs wasn’t such a good idea. So the league’s competition committee withdrew the proposal Wednesday after an informal vote sent it “down in flames,” according to New York Giants co-owner John Mara.
“The more we can keep tradition,” said Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose hand most decidedly did not go up in support of a wild-card team with a better record than a division winner getting a home game in the first playoff round. “There’s something to be said about competition at the end of the season, but look at our game against the Giants. Tom Coughlin didn’t hold back and we had something to play for.
“I do believe if you win a division, it’s good for your fans to know you will have a home game. “To win a division, there is a reward and we wanted to keep that.”
Competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay, president of the Atlanta Falcons, was not surprised about the lack of support for reseeding.
“This idea we wanted to push this year to get the discussion going,” McKay said. “There were not a lot of hands up, so we withdrew the proposal for now.
“There is the historical idea that a division champion should have a home game.”
The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.
Reviewing field goals was a slam dunk for the owners after a kick by Cleveland’s Phil Dawson to tie a game at Baltimore hit the support behind the crossbar, then came back onto the field. Officials got the call correct despite not being allowed to use replay. Now they can.
Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher said eliminating the forceout rule was approved unanimously and that it will help officiating. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.
Fisher also noted how strongly deferring the choice on the coin toss, currently the rule in college, was accepted 30-2.
“I was surprised by the support. We’ll see how that goes,” he said. “It now gives coaches a third option. After talking to a number of coaches, many prefer to start on offense. I think we may see (more) deferrals later in the year with weather considerations.”
In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask.
On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.
Goodell also was given a pledge by the owners to support his protection of the integrity of the game, something for which he has been praised in his 18 months in charge. The NFL’s image has taken some hits with the Michael Vick and Pacman Jones situations and the Spygate scandal. Goodell acted swiftly in all those cases, impressing the league membership.
Also:
— Goodell reiterated he wants to meet with former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, who has indicated he has more information about the team taping opponents’ signals. But Goodell added “at some point, I will run out of patience.”
— McKay said the competition committee will look into scheduling more games between division opponents late in the season to combat the possibility of meaningless matchups.
— The committee will investigate what to do with the defensive player who has the communication device when that player also is on special teams. He suggested the device would be cut off during such plays.
— Goodell emphasized the owners’ support for NFL Network and his optimism that the channel will wind up on the main tiers of the major cable outlets with which the league currently is feuding.
NFL owners pass some proposals, ignore others at annual meetings
By BARRY WILNER, AP Football Writer
Apr 3, 2008
PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — The coin toss was altered and the playoffs weren’t touched.
Hate forceouts? They’re gone.
Afraid of more looks by referees at instant replay. These might be worthwhile.
A busy NFL owners meetings ended Wednesday with a show of hands that made it obvious reseeding the playoffs wasn’t such a good idea. So the league’s competition committee withdrew the proposal Wednesday after an informal vote sent it “down in flames,” according to New York Giants co-owner John Mara.
“The more we can keep tradition,” said Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose hand most decidedly did not go up in support of a wild-card team with a better record than a division winner getting a home game in the first playoff round. “There’s something to be said about competition at the end of the season, but look at our game against the Giants. Tom Coughlin didn’t hold back and we had something to play for.
“I do believe if you win a division, it’s good for your fans to know you will have a home game. “To win a division, there is a reward and we wanted to keep that.”
Competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay, president of the Atlanta Falcons, was not surprised about the lack of support for reseeding.
“This idea we wanted to push this year to get the discussion going,” McKay said. “There were not a lot of hands up, so we withdrew the proposal for now.
“There is the historical idea that a division champion should have a home game.”
The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.
Reviewing field goals was a slam dunk for the owners after a kick by Cleveland’s Phil Dawson to tie a game at Baltimore hit the support behind the crossbar, then came back onto the field. Officials got the call correct despite not being allowed to use replay. Now they can.
Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher said eliminating the forceout rule was approved unanimously and that it will help officiating. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.
Fisher also noted how strongly deferring the choice on the coin toss, currently the rule in college, was accepted 30-2.
“I was surprised by the support. We’ll see how that goes,” he said. “It now gives coaches a third option. After talking to a number of coaches, many prefer to start on offense. I think we may see (more) deferrals later in the year with weather considerations.”
In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask.
On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.
Goodell also was given a pledge by the owners to support his protection of the integrity of the game, something for which he has been praised in his 18 months in charge. The NFL’s image has taken some hits with the Michael Vick and Pacman Jones situations and the Spygate scandal. Goodell acted swiftly in all those cases, impressing the league membership.
Also:
— Goodell reiterated he wants to meet with former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, who has indicated he has more information about the team taping opponents’ signals. But Goodell added “at some point, I will run out of patience.”
— McKay said the competition committee will look into scheduling more games between division opponents late in the season to combat the possibility of meaningless matchups.
— The committee will investigate what to do with the defensive player who has the communication device when that player also is on special teams. He suggested the device would be cut off during such plays.
— Goodell emphasized the owners’ support for NFL Network and his optimism that the channel will wind up on the main tiers of the major cable outlets with which the league currently is feuding.
Buckner Makes Heartfelt Return to Fenway
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0bfGGjFFTc8ZLonvjb3yjpiosggD8VTUS100
Buckner Makes Heartfelt Return to Fenway
By HOWARD ULMAN
4-8-8
BOSTON (AP) — Bill Buckner's eyes were red. He paused for 15 seconds to control his emotions. Then he spoke again.
The outstanding hitter known for a costly World Series error had just thrown out the ceremonial first pitch to a loud ovation before the Red Sox home opener Tuesday. It was a strike to former teammate Dwight Evans.
The experience, Buckner said, was "probably about as emotional as it could get."
But he nearly decided not to come.
The Red Sox received their championship rings for winning the 2007 World Series before Tuesday's game against the Detroit Tigers. Buckner's legacy is tied to losing the series in 1986.
The former first baseman knew the same old questions would crop up about that play 22 years ago that has been replayed on television hundreds of times. At first, he turned down the team's request. A few days later he agreed to return to Fenway Park for the first time since 1997 when he was batting coach with the Chicago White Sox.
"I really had to forgive," he said after collecting himself, "not the fans of Boston per se, but I would have to say, in my heart, I had to forgive the media..."
Another pause, this one for 10 seconds, before he continued, "...for what they put me and my family through. So I've done that. I'm over that. And I'm just happy that I just try to think of the positive. The happy things."
And not about the night of Oct. 25 in Shea Stadium when Mookie Wilson's ground ball rolled through his legs in the 10th inning. It capped a three-run rally and drove in the winning run in the New York Mets 6-5 win that forced a seventh game.
The Mets won the final game 8-5 and Boston's streak of no championships since 1918 continued. That drought ended in 2004, and then the Red Sox made it two championships in four years.
Buckner, a .289 hitter in 22 years with more than 100 RBIs in two of his three full seasons with Boston, wasn't the only Red Sox player who failed in the last two games of the 1986 Series. To focus on just one play is "the ugly part of sports," he said.
"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried, so don't try?"
The Mets already had tied the game at 5 in the 10th against Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley before Wilson hit the ball to Buckner. And the Red Sox led 3-0 after 5 1/2 innings of Game 7 before the Mets tied it against Bruce Hurst in the bottom of the sixth and nicked Schiraldi for three runs in the seventh.
"You can look at that series and point fingers in a whole bunch of different directions," Buckner said. "We did the best we could to win there and it just didn't happen and I didn't feel like I deserved" so much blame.
"If I felt like it was my fault, I'd step up to the plate and say, `hey, if I wasn't here the Red Sox would have won this thing,' but I really can't do that so I think some of it is unjustly directed my way," he said. "I'm pretty tough mentally, but the hardest part was with my family and my kids and I'm still dealing with it."
His son Bobby is a freshman infielder at the University of Texas. His daughter Christen played softball at Boise (Idaho) High School. She is now a reporter for the Fox television station in Boise and attended her father's news conference for a story to be broadcast Wednesday.
"There were times when they had to deal with it," Buckner said. "I don't think that's fair and that made me a little bitter. I'm over that."
He praised the Red Sox management in place in 1986 and the current ownership group. He thanked fans for their support. He said he'd like to come back some day.
Buckner was cheered continuously as he walked from the Green Monster in left field — draped with an American flag covering both the 2007 and 2004 World Series banners — to the mound, waving to the full house along the way.
Then he stood on the rubber, came to a stretch, threw the ball then made an umpire's strike sign before embracing Evans.
"I'm glad that he's here," Evans said. "Just seeing him walk out, I couldn't be happier for him."
The pregame ceremonies featured appearances from current former players of the Boston Celtics and Bruins and current New England Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi.
Then the Red Sox received their rings, which feature 42 diamonds of various sizes. The inside of the ring is engraved with: "Boston Red Sox" and "10-28-07."
David Ortiz received his ring last, with the Red Sox' victory song — "Dirty Water" by the Standells — blaring.
Bruschi was touched by the reception for Buckner.
"I thought the ovation was incredible," Bruschi said. "I think you can see the emotion on his face, the way he was taking it all in. I don't know if it was cleansing for him or not. ... I've only been here 13 years but I've heard about that (play) enough."
So has Buckner, who was traded to the Red Sox by the Chicago Cubs in May 1984 and released in July 1987. He rejoined them in 1990 then retired after 22 games.
"Two of my best moments in baseball were when I came back here in '90 and today," he said. "The Red Sox fans, they've been great."
They cheered him in 1986, when the team made it to the seventh game of the World Series.
"It was a great season," Buckner said. "There's a lot of good memories and I'm just happy that I can focus on those."
Buckner Makes Heartfelt Return to Fenway
By HOWARD ULMAN
4-8-8
BOSTON (AP) — Bill Buckner's eyes were red. He paused for 15 seconds to control his emotions. Then he spoke again.
The outstanding hitter known for a costly World Series error had just thrown out the ceremonial first pitch to a loud ovation before the Red Sox home opener Tuesday. It was a strike to former teammate Dwight Evans.
The experience, Buckner said, was "probably about as emotional as it could get."
But he nearly decided not to come.
The Red Sox received their championship rings for winning the 2007 World Series before Tuesday's game against the Detroit Tigers. Buckner's legacy is tied to losing the series in 1986.
The former first baseman knew the same old questions would crop up about that play 22 years ago that has been replayed on television hundreds of times. At first, he turned down the team's request. A few days later he agreed to return to Fenway Park for the first time since 1997 when he was batting coach with the Chicago White Sox.
"I really had to forgive," he said after collecting himself, "not the fans of Boston per se, but I would have to say, in my heart, I had to forgive the media..."
Another pause, this one for 10 seconds, before he continued, "...for what they put me and my family through. So I've done that. I'm over that. And I'm just happy that I just try to think of the positive. The happy things."
And not about the night of Oct. 25 in Shea Stadium when Mookie Wilson's ground ball rolled through his legs in the 10th inning. It capped a three-run rally and drove in the winning run in the New York Mets 6-5 win that forced a seventh game.
The Mets won the final game 8-5 and Boston's streak of no championships since 1918 continued. That drought ended in 2004, and then the Red Sox made it two championships in four years.
Buckner, a .289 hitter in 22 years with more than 100 RBIs in two of his three full seasons with Boston, wasn't the only Red Sox player who failed in the last two games of the 1986 Series. To focus on just one play is "the ugly part of sports," he said.
"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried, so don't try?"
The Mets already had tied the game at 5 in the 10th against Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley before Wilson hit the ball to Buckner. And the Red Sox led 3-0 after 5 1/2 innings of Game 7 before the Mets tied it against Bruce Hurst in the bottom of the sixth and nicked Schiraldi for three runs in the seventh.
"You can look at that series and point fingers in a whole bunch of different directions," Buckner said. "We did the best we could to win there and it just didn't happen and I didn't feel like I deserved" so much blame.
"If I felt like it was my fault, I'd step up to the plate and say, `hey, if I wasn't here the Red Sox would have won this thing,' but I really can't do that so I think some of it is unjustly directed my way," he said. "I'm pretty tough mentally, but the hardest part was with my family and my kids and I'm still dealing with it."
His son Bobby is a freshman infielder at the University of Texas. His daughter Christen played softball at Boise (Idaho) High School. She is now a reporter for the Fox television station in Boise and attended her father's news conference for a story to be broadcast Wednesday.
"There were times when they had to deal with it," Buckner said. "I don't think that's fair and that made me a little bitter. I'm over that."
He praised the Red Sox management in place in 1986 and the current ownership group. He thanked fans for their support. He said he'd like to come back some day.
Buckner was cheered continuously as he walked from the Green Monster in left field — draped with an American flag covering both the 2007 and 2004 World Series banners — to the mound, waving to the full house along the way.
Then he stood on the rubber, came to a stretch, threw the ball then made an umpire's strike sign before embracing Evans.
"I'm glad that he's here," Evans said. "Just seeing him walk out, I couldn't be happier for him."
The pregame ceremonies featured appearances from current former players of the Boston Celtics and Bruins and current New England Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi.
Then the Red Sox received their rings, which feature 42 diamonds of various sizes. The inside of the ring is engraved with: "Boston Red Sox" and "10-28-07."
David Ortiz received his ring last, with the Red Sox' victory song — "Dirty Water" by the Standells — blaring.
Bruschi was touched by the reception for Buckner.
"I thought the ovation was incredible," Bruschi said. "I think you can see the emotion on his face, the way he was taking it all in. I don't know if it was cleansing for him or not. ... I've only been here 13 years but I've heard about that (play) enough."
So has Buckner, who was traded to the Red Sox by the Chicago Cubs in May 1984 and released in July 1987. He rejoined them in 1990 then retired after 22 games.
"Two of my best moments in baseball were when I came back here in '90 and today," he said. "The Red Sox fans, they've been great."
They cheered him in 1986, when the team made it to the seventh game of the World Series.
"It was a great season," Buckner said. "There's a lot of good memories and I'm just happy that I can focus on those."
Jose Canseco Composes Opera About Steroids
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/jose_canseco_composes_opera
Jose Canseco Composes Opera About Steroids
April 3, 2008 Onion Sports
NEW YORK — Just days after the publication of Vindicated, his second book concerning the use of steroids in professional baseball, former steroid-using baseball player and current steroid-awareness advocate Jose Canseco has debuted La Anabolica, an opera concerning the use of steroids in professional baseball. "I've done books, interviews, public speaking appearances, improv, and theater-in-the-round on the theme of steroids, and I was looking for something fresh and new, " Canseco said from the stage of the Met. "I think my libretto—especially the climactic scene in which fair Don Giambi is tempted to use the magic golden steroids to defeat evil knights Die Rosensox and their enchanted beast Il Monsto Verde—is exactly what is needed to bring the message of steroids in baseball to a new audience." Critics have not been kind to La Anabolica, noting that "the lyrics mostly consist of the word 'steroids' chanted over and over" and that "the ending, which occurs as a steroid-enhanced fat lady sings, is doubly and almost impossibly clichéd."
Jose Canseco Composes Opera About Steroids
April 3, 2008 Onion Sports
NEW YORK — Just days after the publication of Vindicated, his second book concerning the use of steroids in professional baseball, former steroid-using baseball player and current steroid-awareness advocate Jose Canseco has debuted La Anabolica, an opera concerning the use of steroids in professional baseball. "I've done books, interviews, public speaking appearances, improv, and theater-in-the-round on the theme of steroids, and I was looking for something fresh and new, " Canseco said from the stage of the Met. "I think my libretto—especially the climactic scene in which fair Don Giambi is tempted to use the magic golden steroids to defeat evil knights Die Rosensox and their enchanted beast Il Monsto Verde—is exactly what is needed to bring the message of steroids in baseball to a new audience." Critics have not been kind to La Anabolica, noting that "the lyrics mostly consist of the word 'steroids' chanted over and over" and that "the ending, which occurs as a steroid-enhanced fat lady sings, is doubly and almost impossibly clichéd."
Jeter’s injury acute pain for Yanks
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-jeterarod040808
Jeter’s injury acute pain for Yanks
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
4-8-8
NEW YORK – Joe Girardi didn’t say no. Joe Torre would have.
Now, this is not to compare Girardi and Torre, not in a mano-a-mano fashion at least, but one that deals with today’s reality in the New York Yankees universe: Suggestions that Alex Rodriguez move to shortstop if the strained left quadriceps that forced Derek Jeter out of a game Monday lingers.
“There’s a lot of different scenarios we’ll talk about as a club and decide what we’re going to do,” Girardi said, and even though there was little substance to his words, it felt frighteningly candid – and, considering the other options, a rather sensible idea. Because under Torre’s watch, no matter how damaging to the Yankees in the short or long term, he wouldn’t dare place someone of consequence at Jeter’s position for fear of upsetting the captain’s chi.
Only if the injury doesn’t heal – Jeter thinks it’ll take a day or two, Girardi closer to a week and both hope he can avoid the disabled list – might the sentiment change, and even then it would be a hard sell. And that’s an important point to discuss, particularly months after a number of studies concluded that Jeter is among, if not the, worst-fielding shortstop in the major leagues.
One large study, conducted at the Wharton Business School, uses a metric – a statistic-based analysis – to show how Jeter was the pits from 2002-05 and Rodriguez was among the best shortstops. Its veracity is questionable, considering it named the positively slothful Ken Harvey as its first-base representative.
Not nearly as dubious is John Dewan’s book, “The Fielding Bible”, in which Dewan culls data from every play and rates players on a plus-minus scale – plus for making a play that at least one of his peers had missed, and minus for the opposite. It is the new standard for fielding statistics, and in the past three years, Jeter is minus-90, the second-worst number in all of baseball, better only than Manny Ramirez’s minus-109.
Is that damning enough to even entertain alternates at the position of the most beloved Yankee of the past two decades? Probably not, even though the Yankees sure have a built-in excuse if they want to see whether a bulkier, older A-Rod can cut it at shortstop.
It doesn’t help that Jeter’s legs, his springboards in the field, are causing him such trouble. In the bottom of the first inning Monday with a runner on first base against Tampa Bay, Jeter slapped a ground ball at the third baseman and lurched as much as ran down the line. He beat the double-play throw, spent another half-inning in the field and left before the third inning.
“He’s always been a tough kid, and he wants to be out there,” Girardi said. “No matter how his body feels, he wants to be out there. But you know, with these conditions, you jeopardize really hurting yourself badly, and we don’t want that, because we can’t afford to miss him for a long time.”
Jeter can still hit. He proves that every year, his inside-out stroke shooting balls to right field and reinforcing his opportunism. Jeter gets the loudest cheers at Yankee Stadium, and he didn’t earn them only by smiling into a camera.
Ultimately, such deification comes to roost, and to think the 33-year-old Jeter, with more than 12 seasons at the most demanding position, wants to continue playing shortstop deep into the decade is troublesome. Try center field. Settle at first base. Anything to keep him upright, which he has managed to stay with stunning regularity thus far.
Jeter first felt a twinge in his quad during the Yankees’ Sunday game and iced it before Monday’s game. That didn’t help, and Jeter ended up in an MRI tube to rule out extensive damage. Doctors found a low-level strain, nothing like in 2001, when Jeter missed Opening Day because of his right quad.
“That was worse,” Jeter said. “This is a mild strain, from what I was told. The other one was a lot worse than that. It was something you could feel moving your leg, period. This one is more when I put for a little effort. I really start running before I feel it.”
Soon after he felt it, Jeter excused himself. Wilson Betemit moved from first base to shortstop. Betemit, at 230 pounds, plays the position with all the agility of a cast-iron skillet. He’s not the answer.
Aside from Betemit and A-Rod, there’s not another person on the Yankees’ active roster who can play shortstop. They could call up rookie Alberto Gonzalez, who is on the team’s 40-man roster, or Cody Ransom, who would require a roster move but bring more experience. Or, of course, they could put A-Rod at short and use Morgan Ensberg, a natural third baseman, to fill in.
Like Girardi said, plenty of scenarios.
If Jeter heals slowly, it could get ugly, as quad strains tend to hang around like freeloaders. Mark Teixeira spent five weeks on the DL with one last season. Bengie Molina hobbled around most of spring. Victor Martinez missed a dozen games last year.
Jeter will sacrifice his first Tuesday afternoon. As much as he wants to play, Jeter recognizes Girardi runs a different ship than Torre did. When Girardi says no, he means it, and while he gladly massages egos, he also keeps them in check.
So for now it falls on Betemit, a natural shortstop who outgrew the position about 40 pounds ago. He’ll stand in the most trafficked position on the field, and he’ll replace a no-doubt Hall of Famer, and he’ll try to swim.
Rodriguez will stand next to him. He last played shortstop full time in 2003. Five years is a long time. And still, the idea just won’t die. It’s so crazy it just might work, and weird as it sounds, that’s the last thing the Yankees need.
Jeter’s injury acute pain for Yanks
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
4-8-8
NEW YORK – Joe Girardi didn’t say no. Joe Torre would have.
Now, this is not to compare Girardi and Torre, not in a mano-a-mano fashion at least, but one that deals with today’s reality in the New York Yankees universe: Suggestions that Alex Rodriguez move to shortstop if the strained left quadriceps that forced Derek Jeter out of a game Monday lingers.
“There’s a lot of different scenarios we’ll talk about as a club and decide what we’re going to do,” Girardi said, and even though there was little substance to his words, it felt frighteningly candid – and, considering the other options, a rather sensible idea. Because under Torre’s watch, no matter how damaging to the Yankees in the short or long term, he wouldn’t dare place someone of consequence at Jeter’s position for fear of upsetting the captain’s chi.
Only if the injury doesn’t heal – Jeter thinks it’ll take a day or two, Girardi closer to a week and both hope he can avoid the disabled list – might the sentiment change, and even then it would be a hard sell. And that’s an important point to discuss, particularly months after a number of studies concluded that Jeter is among, if not the, worst-fielding shortstop in the major leagues.
One large study, conducted at the Wharton Business School, uses a metric – a statistic-based analysis – to show how Jeter was the pits from 2002-05 and Rodriguez was among the best shortstops. Its veracity is questionable, considering it named the positively slothful Ken Harvey as its first-base representative.
Not nearly as dubious is John Dewan’s book, “The Fielding Bible”, in which Dewan culls data from every play and rates players on a plus-minus scale – plus for making a play that at least one of his peers had missed, and minus for the opposite. It is the new standard for fielding statistics, and in the past three years, Jeter is minus-90, the second-worst number in all of baseball, better only than Manny Ramirez’s minus-109.
Is that damning enough to even entertain alternates at the position of the most beloved Yankee of the past two decades? Probably not, even though the Yankees sure have a built-in excuse if they want to see whether a bulkier, older A-Rod can cut it at shortstop.
It doesn’t help that Jeter’s legs, his springboards in the field, are causing him such trouble. In the bottom of the first inning Monday with a runner on first base against Tampa Bay, Jeter slapped a ground ball at the third baseman and lurched as much as ran down the line. He beat the double-play throw, spent another half-inning in the field and left before the third inning.
“He’s always been a tough kid, and he wants to be out there,” Girardi said. “No matter how his body feels, he wants to be out there. But you know, with these conditions, you jeopardize really hurting yourself badly, and we don’t want that, because we can’t afford to miss him for a long time.”
Jeter can still hit. He proves that every year, his inside-out stroke shooting balls to right field and reinforcing his opportunism. Jeter gets the loudest cheers at Yankee Stadium, and he didn’t earn them only by smiling into a camera.
Ultimately, such deification comes to roost, and to think the 33-year-old Jeter, with more than 12 seasons at the most demanding position, wants to continue playing shortstop deep into the decade is troublesome. Try center field. Settle at first base. Anything to keep him upright, which he has managed to stay with stunning regularity thus far.
Jeter first felt a twinge in his quad during the Yankees’ Sunday game and iced it before Monday’s game. That didn’t help, and Jeter ended up in an MRI tube to rule out extensive damage. Doctors found a low-level strain, nothing like in 2001, when Jeter missed Opening Day because of his right quad.
“That was worse,” Jeter said. “This is a mild strain, from what I was told. The other one was a lot worse than that. It was something you could feel moving your leg, period. This one is more when I put for a little effort. I really start running before I feel it.”
Soon after he felt it, Jeter excused himself. Wilson Betemit moved from first base to shortstop. Betemit, at 230 pounds, plays the position with all the agility of a cast-iron skillet. He’s not the answer.
Aside from Betemit and A-Rod, there’s not another person on the Yankees’ active roster who can play shortstop. They could call up rookie Alberto Gonzalez, who is on the team’s 40-man roster, or Cody Ransom, who would require a roster move but bring more experience. Or, of course, they could put A-Rod at short and use Morgan Ensberg, a natural third baseman, to fill in.
Like Girardi said, plenty of scenarios.
If Jeter heals slowly, it could get ugly, as quad strains tend to hang around like freeloaders. Mark Teixeira spent five weeks on the DL with one last season. Bengie Molina hobbled around most of spring. Victor Martinez missed a dozen games last year.
Jeter will sacrifice his first Tuesday afternoon. As much as he wants to play, Jeter recognizes Girardi runs a different ship than Torre did. When Girardi says no, he means it, and while he gladly massages egos, he also keeps them in check.
So for now it falls on Betemit, a natural shortstop who outgrew the position about 40 pounds ago. He’ll stand in the most trafficked position on the field, and he’ll replace a no-doubt Hall of Famer, and he’ll try to swim.
Rodriguez will stand next to him. He last played shortstop full time in 2003. Five years is a long time. And still, the idea just won’t die. It’s so crazy it just might work, and weird as it sounds, that’s the last thing the Yankees need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
