This didn't happen to a friend, or a friend of a friend. I didn't read about it on the internet, and you won't find a debunking on Snopes. The following stories are real, and they happened to me and my family over the course of sevral years.
While I do believe in the possibility of all kinds of paranormal occurances, everything from ghosts to ESP to Bigfoot, I am a profound skeptic. I look for rational explanations for irrational events, and only after those have been exhausted will I consider other, less rigorous explanations.
As such, I make no claims or attributions about the causes of the events I am about to relate; I can only tell you that they actually happened, and that I personally witnessed several of them. Make of them what you will.
The Haunted Farm
The summer before my sophomore year in high school, we moved from a suburban house in West Knoxville out to an old farmhouse in Dandridge. The house predated the War Between the States, and at one time was the center of a large plantation. There were three barns, and an old log cabin on the property as well.
The place had been neglected terribly; the yard was overgrown; there were broken windows on most of the outbuildings, and the swimming pool outback looked more like a cow pond. The red paint on the extrerior brick walls was cracked and peeling, exposing a whitewash coat underneath. The windows of the house itself were glazed with about a decades dust, and the old glass distorted the view outside, adding hazy ripples to the flat front lawn.
Inside, the house showed its abused beauty. The hardwood floors gently sloped to the north, wrenched out of true as the earth had settled over the decades. There was a gorgeous staircase in the front of the house. Gorgeous that is, until some former owner decided to paint over the hard wood with an ugly gray color. They must not have liked the gray, because they began to cover it with an uglier green. Either they ran out of money, or realized they were just making things worse, because neither coat went all the way to the top, leaving the railing with three distinct colors.
In keeping with its origins, there was no central heat or air, but there were large fireplaces, 3 downstairs and 2 upstairs. A modern kitchen had been added on sometime much later, and was decorated in a horribly ugly 70s motif that even Mike Brady would scorn. In another nod to modernization, a small bathroom was added, just off the front hall.
Yep, 3 kids, two of them teenagers, 2 adults, and one bathroom.
My parents loved the place.
If I remember right, we moved in to the house in late July or early August, before school started. It was hot, and we worked hard getting the house in shape. Well, to be honest, Mom and Dad did most of the work; we helped when we couldn't get out of it. It was actually pretty cool, living in that house. It was built differently than modern houses; the ceilings were very high, there were register holes cut in the floor to allow the warmer air from the downstairs fireplaces to reach the upstairs; there were honest to goodness real wood crown and baseboard moldings; and the walls were plaster and lathe, not drywall. The rooms were large, and there were only a few of them. Upstairs was a landing for the staircase and two bedrooms. My brother and I shared the one on the right, and my sister had the one on the left.
It wasn't long after we moved in that my sister started talking about seeing faces in her room. She was 12 or 13 at the time, and prone to dramatic outbursts, so I'm embarrassed to say we all basically blew her off. We learned what a mistake that was later on.
Then my mom began to experience things in the house as well. She tells the story of standing in the kitchen, doing the dishes, when she felt someone behind her. She looked but there was nobady there. She went back to washing, and the feeling of being watched grew stronger. She turned again, and there was still nothing there. She was starting to get a little nervous, but went back to the dishes, and this time the feeling of being watched was unbearable. She whirled around, and this time, my dad was standing there, having just walked into the kitchen. Mom let out a shriek that nearly gave him a heart attack! Of course, he wanted to know what was going on, why she was so jumpy. When she told him, he dismissed it, just like we'd done with my sister. He's much too grounded in the real world to buy into ghosts.
Then, it was my turn.
One afternoon, I was upstairs in my bedroom, reading. I was laying on my bed, lost somewhere in another world when I was brought crashing back to this one. The foot of my bed, a wood framed twin, jumped about an inch or so off the floor like somebody had grabbed the end, lifted it, then dropped it. This happened three times in about a second or so, then stopped.
I performed my own supernatural feat, levitating off the bed, across the room, around the corner and down the stairs without ever a foot hitting the floor. My parents were downstairs wathcing TV, and I asked them if they'd heard the noise. They hadn't, and asked me what was going on. When I explained (and apologized to my sister) once again, my dad refused to even consider that there was a ghost.
Now, I'm not normally a foolish person. While I make my share of mistakes, it's rarely the result of some rash action. But my next encounter provedthe exception to this rule.
Late one evening, my mother and I had the bright idea to try and contact whatever seemed to be sharing the house with us. I brought home a Ouija board from a friend at school, and we started to mess around with it. I don't claim to be an expert in psychic phenomena, and I don't know how the planchette is supposed to move, but every time we put our hands on the silly thing, it would sit perfectly still for several minutes, then would jump several inches. We would both yank our hands off the thing, laughing nervously at the shock, then try again. After about the fourth time we went through this cycle, I heard a loud scraping sound coming from the front porch. I went out there to see what was going on.
I looked around on the porch to see what could have made the noise. The only things there were a couple of wrought iron benches that weighed at least 100 lbs apiece. When I went over to check them, I found fresh scratches where one of the benches had been pushed across the brick for about 4 inches.
That's the last time I've touched a Ouija board.
Shortly afterwards, I moved out of the house into the old cabin about 75 yards from the main house. We ran electricity and a phone line, but there was no plumbing, there were gaps between the roof and walls that a cat could climb through, and no heat, except for a woodburning stove we installed, but it was mine, and I wasn't sharing it with anyone, natural or otherwise.
Well, except for a few spiders, and the aforementioned cats.
Everyone continued to encounter our housemate, except for my father, who grew ever more adamant that there was no such thing as ghosts.
Until his turn came.
He was very quiet one morning, which if you know my father, would tell you just how profoundly he was affected by what he'd seen. It took him quite awhile to admit to us what had happened, although he told my mom immediately. Apparently, he woke up to see a woman standing by the door of their room, looking at him. I never got many of the details, because he really didn't like talking about it, but he stopped giving the rest of us a hard time after that.
A couple of years later, I had one more encounter with something odd in that house. I was home alone watching TV downstairs when I heard a loud crash, and heavy footsteps walking across the floor upstairs. The crash was pretty big, and it seemed like it would take a major piece of furntiture to make that kind of noise.
Now, I've watched a lot of horror movies, and I know how the script goes. The hero grabs a poker from the fireplace and goes up stairs, holding the poker in front of him, looking for the cause of the noise. What happens next depends on the movie's rating, but it's rarely good for our hero. He winds up pinned to a door by a monster knife, eaten by some scabrous thing from a crypt, or sucked into an alternate univers inside a haunted TV. None of those fates really appealed to me; neither did the more prosaic possibility of surprising a burlar in mid burgle.
So, I went to the fireplace, grabbed the poker, and carefully held it in front of me as I went to close the damn door leading to the upstairs. I waited there behind the closed door for about 15 minutes, giving whatever it was plenty of time to go about its business. After that, I went back into the living room, and started watching TV again. If it was a burglar, he had time to get out. If it wasn't, well what could I do about it?
The last episode I know about came a couple of years later. One Sunday morning, my family was sitting on the sun porch eating breakfast, when they heard me coming through the living room. My dad called out to me to come eat before it got cold. They waited about 10 seconds or so for me to come in and sit down before they remembered that I had gone into the Navy, and was in Illinois going through training. Dad went into the living room to check, and there was nobody there.
There are other stories of things people saw or experienced in the house, like the time my mom woke up and the entire bedroom was shaking. She thought it was an earthquake or tremor at first, but there was nothing on the news about it, and it was significant enough that it should have been recorded. In all the time we lived there, we never got the feeling of hostility, or danger, just a solid jolt of fear of the unknown from time to time.
The folks who moved into the house after we left told us that things were still happening there. The lady had done some research, and found out that one of the past residents was a nosy spinster, who spent the last years of her life in the house. They think she might still be there, keeping tabs on what goes on.
Like I said at the start, I don't know. I can explain away the sightings, the thuds and thumps, the footsteps, and the paranoia. I can even believe that maybe a large dog pushed up against the wrought iron bench, at the precise moment we were experimenting with the Ouija board, then running off when I opened the front door. But I cannot explain away the bed.
Happy Halloween!
Halloween, that wonderful time when otherwise sane parents protect their children by preventing little Timmy and Suzy from scoring some free candy by dressing up as ghosts and goblins, instead forcing them to attend a Judgment House, where adults dress up like devils and demons and scare the hell out of the little buggers by telling them it's all real, and that's what will happen to them if they don't toe the line.
Go figure.
Vols are favored by 26 points going in to thier homecoming game against Duke.
Interestingly, the Vols have scored 26 points or more only once during regulation play this season, and that was against Marshall. Yet the Bookies seem to belive that UT will win big over a team that took NC State to the wire last week.
I'm ppicking the Vols, but taking the points.
28-17 Vols.
The wild fires in California have been raging for just over a week now, and 20 people have died.
That's over twice the number of American soldiers who died in combat in Iraq over the same time period.
For additional perspective, DC is expected to have about 325 murders this year, which at current rates is about 100 more deaths than we can expect for US soldiers in Iraq.
For all of you who favor the US turning over the Iraqi reconstruction to the UN, please justify your faith in that spineless organization in light of this:
The United Nations (news - web sites) said Wednesday it was temporarily pulling its remaining international staff out of Baghdad, joining other organizations in withdrawing after Monday's deadly suicide car bombing at the Baghdad headquarters of the Red Cross.
A bombing at another organization's building has led them to bug out! If that's the sum total of their commitment to the Iraqi people then why on earth should we let them run things?
I read today about a "milestone" in Iraq. More soldiers have died in combat since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations than died before.
Some folks are spinning this as a sign of further Bush lies, that major combat is still ongoing, that he lied when he said it was over.
I really shouldn't have to say this, since it's evident to anyone without an ax to grind, but the fact that it took roughly 6 months (May 1 to Oct 29) to equal the combat deaths suffered in 6 weeks of combat (Mar 20-May 1) is a fair indication that major combat is, in fact, over.
This is also Bush's fault.
Another spectacular eruption on the surface of the Sun could disrupt communications on Earth this week, and may even hamper firefighting efforts in California, scientists say."It's headed straight for us like a freight train," said John Kohl, a solar astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "This is the real thing."
See, there really is no solar flare. Bush is using a second generation HAARP device to beam an electromagnetic mind control ray globally. The tin foil hats have been blocking the signal from the older HAARP, so the FEMA/NSA/DARPA cabal decided to increase the amplitude of the signal by an order of magnitude. The flare is a cover story, because so much energy will be radiated during the broadcast that we will see auroras as far south as Texas. Also, mind control broadcasts take a significant amount of energy. The first use caused the California energy crunch. The second use was aborted when the grid overloaded, causing the blackout. Any effects from this third use will be blamed on the non-existent flare activity.
Just as Bush allowed 9-11 in order to give him a defining issue, one that allowed him to impose his radically conservative agenda on America, so too did Arnold Schwarzenegger light the wild fires in California, in order to distract the voters from his total lack of any platform, and to provide a built in excuse for failing to rapidly address the state's financial crisis.
Hey, one good conspiracy deserves another, right?
I think we can all agree that freedom is a good thing. So is democracy. Human rights are a good thing as well. Public education should be supported. A free and vigorous press is essential for a healthy, free society. Ending oppression and maximizing personal freedom are hall marks of a liberal government. These issues have long been major core values of progressive parties.
Except when it comes to Iraq.
Why?
The voices on the left urging us to pull out of Iraq now are growing in strength.
Why?
Iraq now has more political freedom than any other Middle Eastern nation. They have more newspapers. They have political organizations representing a wide continuum of ideologies. The schools are opened and the political prisons are closed.
Yet some on the left would have us leave before making sure that a newly liberated Iraq has the strength to keep their new freedoms.
Why?
It's funny; a conservative President is deeply engaged in bringing a liberal democracy to an oppressed people, and the people fighting him most viciously are not Ba'athists and Islamic extremists, but liberal democrats.
Why?
Could it be that their hatred of Bush and conservatism is so strong that they will automatically oppose anything he tries, regardless of the merits?
I hope not.
Did I just hear Frank DeFord on NPR's Morning Edition compare athletic doping to terrorism?
Yep! (Scroll down to Commentary: Sports and Drugs for audio link)
Let's see; one results in a few extra home runs, the other in children getting blown to pieces on the way to school.
I don't have the words...
Porphyrogenitus has a good question:
Ok, so I've been reading the news accounts of the latest round of bombings in Iraq. I figured that if anything was deserving of such protection as having a ring of human shields to prevent bombing, it might be a Red Cross facility dedicated to succoring the Iraqi people. But no mention of any human shields.
I guess it's a question of sincerity. It's a whole lot easier to stand in front of buildings you know aren't going to be targeted.
Presented on the off chance that somebody who reads me doesn't read Instapundit
Here's an article linking al Qaida agents to a plot to light several simultaneous fires in the US West, in an attempt to spread fear and weaken US resolve.
In August, Australian authorities launched an investigation into reports al-Qaida planned to spark bushfires in a new wave of devastating terror attacks.A June 25 FBI memo to United States law enforcement agencies revealed a senior al-Qaida detainee claimed to have developed a plan to start midsummer forest fires in the U.S.
The terrorist hoped to mimic the destruction that devastated Canberra last summer, killing four people and destroying more than 500 homes, as well as in other parts of Australia.
Southern California was ripe for wildfires, and we haven't heard any claims of responsibility coming from the terrorists, so I doubt that any connection exists. Still, the possibility of a link should be looked into.
Reading the News-Sentinel on Sunday and today leads me to one inescapable conclusion: the KNS sportwriters are little more than PR flacks for the University of Tennessee. Reading the stuff they call reporting would make you think that Saturday's game was a tremendous victory for the Vol program, on a par with great games like the 86 Sugar Bowl trouncing of Miami, or the Miracle at South Bend in 1991.
Think I'm exaggerating? Read Gary Lundy's take on the game:
The term "classic"' is overused in sports, but this time it fits.Tennessee's 51-43, five-overtime victory over Alabama on Saturday meets every definition of the word.
Oh really? Lets see. Bama 3 and out. UT fumbles. Bama goes 20 yards and punts. UT fumbles. Bama picks up 10 yards in 6 plays, then kicks a FG. UT nets 31 yards and fumbles.
I have a hard time calling any performance that includes three lost fumbles in one quarter a "classic." But maybe that's just me.
Speaking of Lundy, it appears that Vickie Fulmer has recalibrated the erstwhile Clausen critic, who now gives Clausen his Best Spine Award.
Even John Adams, a man we used to count on to give it to us straight, has succumbed to the pressure. Check out his column from the 22nd:
And no matter how poorly Alabama is faring, you always expect a certain toughness from the Tide. You didn't see that toughness last Saturday in a 43-28 loss to the Rebels, who repeatedly whipped Alabama at the line of scrimmage.Based on its most-recent performance, Alabama hasn't just gone bad. It has gone soft.
Yet now, after it took us 5 overtimes to win, he writes this:
Have you ever seen a UT team make more clutch plays to stay in a game or a division race than the one that beat Alabama 51-43 in five overtimes?
Should a former top ten team really have to make clutch plays to win against a team that got whipped by Ole Miss? A team that lost to Northern Illinois? Alabama out rushed UT. They got more first downs than UT. They held the ball longer than UT. And for 58 minutes, they beat UT. Oddly, the KNS sportswriters don't seem to remember that part of the game. They focus instead on Clausen's 'heroic' last minute drive to tie the game.
It gets worse.
Mike Griffith writes a piece about how wonderfully Clausen played.
Clausen turned it around on the final drive, going 6-for-9 for 87 yards. He opened the pivotal drive with a 16-yard completion to James Banks over the middle of the field, and the clock was running.
Clausen was 10-for-17 for 146 yards and four touchdowns from the final drive of regulation to the end of the fifth overtime.
Given that his totals for the game were 23 of 43 for 283 yards, that means that over 58 minutes of play, he was 13 of 36 for 137 yards, in the second half going 2 of 8 for a pitiful 14 yards.
I'm not impressed; why is Mike?
Next, we take a peek at Mike's Report Card. Students could only wish to be graded on a curve this generous. Of course, after the Vols got a C from Griffith for taking that Georgia butt-stomping two weeks ago, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the B they got for this game, but tell me, how does Clausen's mediocrity grade out higher than the special team's play? Clausen's stats are only slightly better than Brodie Croyle's, who, rather than making empty boasts after a game, really was playing with only one arm. Croyle actually had the higher connect percentage. On the special teams side, Colquitt kicked the cover off the ball, Wilhoit made every crucial kick, and one critical tackle, and we decimated Alabama in return yardage. But Clausen gets an A- while special teams gets a B.
Go figure.
I'm a fan. I have the luxury of rooting for the Vols unreservedly. I can have unrealistic expectations; I can dream big; I can believe we can win every game. I can be delusional in my support for the team. I expect better from a reporter. I expect him to counter my enthusiasm with honesty, my wild expectations with hard facts, and my dreams with reality. I expect him to provide that quiet voice of reason that prepares me for the let down when the Vols come up short.
When he doesn't do that, it forces me to do it for him.
Uncle and CJ are all over this.
Except I found a relevant article in last week's Metro Pulse that they might have missed. The article detailed the search for a rumored beast in the Smokies, one that legend has it has run here for hundereds of years. The article talked to eyewitnesses who've seen the critter, scientists who've studied it, park rangers familiar with the areas where the beast has been spotted, and they all agree that there's something to these wild tales.
Then the article asks other scientists and researchers from out of state, who pooh-pooh the possibility that all these people know what they are talking about. The ascribe the stories to misidentification of other, more common animals.
Sounds exactly like what we're reading about the skunk ape, right?
The article was about cougars in the Smokies.
My point? Don't know that I really have one, except maybe that the further removed an 'expert' is from a situation, the less likely he is to accept unusual possibilities.
Here's the deal folks. I've read the memo. It is not a harsh critique of a failing effort, as it has been described by left leaning pundits. Neither is it an indication of faltering confidence, failing leadership, or loss of vision.
Instead it is the logical summation of points and possibilities used to frame a forthcoming discussion on how to improve our efforts in the war on terrorism.
As an ex-Navy Nuke, I had drilled into me the concept that no ongoing effort lacked room for improvement. No matter how good our performance was on our annual operations and safeguards reviews, our only feedback from the examining team was a list of areas that needed improvement.
This constant inspection and self reflection is a hallmark of performance excellence, and I'm pleased to see it in use at the highest levels of our military. It means that our fighting forces will continue to adapt to new global situations, and increase their efficacy and efficiency.
AS for the details of the memo, the questions Rumsfeld posed to his subordinates, they are all formulated to spur creative thought for new approaches to face the military problems of a new world. In short, this is the opening document for a brainstorming session. It wouldn't make sense to start a brainstorming session with a premise that basically says "Everything's fine!"
Rummy gave his men a list of areas for improvement, and challenged them to come up with ways to make those improvements. That's simply good leadership.
But it makes a better story to scream how Rummy thinks we're losing, how all the positive news out of Iraq was just propaganda, so that's what we hear.
At some point, it would be nice if reporters decided to, you know, report the facts, rather than spin the story to fit some ideologically driven angle.
That's me.
I was playing 2-hand touch football with my kids and the rest of my family a week ago Sunday. Now, for some reason, even though I'm built like a defensive lineman, I always end up playing receiver in these games. After making a spectacular over-the-shoulder catch for a first down, I stepped into a hole and twisted my ankle. I heard a crunch and a couple of pops as I rolled on the ground in agony, but true to my lineman nature, I jumped right up and limped back into the huddle. I worked my ankle for about thirty seconds, and the pain went away and I was able to run again. (Well, as well as an out of shape 40 year old man can run anyway.) We ended the game about 90 minutes later, and I went home with my kids to make dinner.
About 30 minutes later, the adrenaline and the endorphins wore off (wonderful things those endorphins) and I began to realize that I may have made a boo-boo. I've dealt with sprains before, so I iced my ankle, and put a compression wrap on it, and figured it would heal in a couple of days.
But that would make for a short column, now wouldn't it?
The instability went away after about 4 days, and most of the swelling went as well, except for around the top of my ankle. A week later, I was still limpng around, and it wasn't getting any better. It would loosen up after walking for a few minutes, but as soon as I stopped, it would stiffen right back up again.
So, I went to see an orthopedist, who followed a ritual that must have been invented by the first doctor back in caveman days.
He asked me where it hurt. I told him.
He promptly grabbed the hurting area and began poking at it.
I said "Ow."
He said, "Does that hurt?"
Four years of college, four more of med school, not to mention who knows how many years of internship and residency, and that's the best he can do? Poke where I told him it hurts, then ask me if it hurts? I already told him where it hurt! What, did he think I was lying?
I broke an ankle once, while I was in the Navy. I was evacuating a compartment during a drill when I slipped on some water and my foot crashed into a bulkhead. (That's a wall for you land lubber types.)
I knew I broke it because when I hit the bulkhead, I felt a lancing pain shoot up from the ankle to about mid calf. I kept my balnce and made it to the passageway, but I knew I'd messed up my ankle pretty seriously. I went to medical that night and the on-duty corpsman (that's the guy who, after about a year of training, fills in for a real doctor) evaluated the ankle by grasping it firmly in both hands, then twisting it as far as it would go in all directions.
At this point the only parts of me touching the exam table were my other foot and the back of my head as I arched up in agony.
I said, "Ow!"
Actually, being a sailor at the time, I said a lot of other things that really don't bear repeating, but in essence, they added up to "Ow."
The corpsman asked, "Does that hurt?"
He diagnosed it as a mild sprain and told me to come back in the morning. After a night of pain, I went back to sick call, where they x-rayed the ankle and informed me that, yes indeed, it was broken.
Anyway, back to now. The doctor pressed firmly on the areas that hurt the most, either searching for a ligament or trying to force me to admit to the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. I was about to confess too, when he finished the exam and informed me that I had a Class III sprain and a torn anterior talo-fibular ligament.
"A season ending injury," is how he put it.
So, I'm in a splint for 6 weeks while my 40 year old body tries to teach my 18 year old mind who it is that's really in charge. Teenagers are known for their stubborness; I'll play again!
Son number 3 is in a playoff game tonight and I will be busy with that.
See ya tomorrow.
Three DOS attacks in 1 week?
Maybe y'all can answer a question for me. Why would the same folks who spout off all the time about how "Information wants to be free" adopt tactics that prevent that very thing?
Is a puzzlement.
PS: For all those that are going to tell me that not all hackers and free info types are malicious, save it. I already know that. But those malicious twits who persist in screwing things up for the rest of us spout the same rhetoric as the generally nice folks who are trying to keep the net free for the rest of us.
I've warned my boys (19 and 17) that in today's world, they have to be extremely cautious in their dealings with women. I've told them that not only does "No mean No, but that in many cases, "Yes" can also mean "No." I've taught them that our legal system is set up to favor the woman in any "he said, she said" scenario, and to take appropriate precautions. I've been told (usually by women) that I'm wrong for this, that I shouldn't be teaching them to be so cautious, that I'm overreacting.
Then I read this.
Overreacting? I don't think so.
Iran has agreed to stop enrighing uranium, which is kind of odd, since they've been claiming they weren't really enriching it in the first place.
Of course, being caught (twice) kind of put the damper on that line of BS.
However, they have agreed to spot inspections, and if they live up to it, that should provide the IAEA with the access needed to keep Iran from pursuing nuclear arms.
The US has an opportunity here to advance their agenda on several fronts. By rewarding Iran's co-operation, should it turn out to be genuine, the US can place even more pressure on North Korea. Like the old cliche says, diplomacy is an iron fist in a velvet glove. Showing the velvet to Iran makes the iron more evident to North Korea.
If the Iranians do allow the inspections, and do operate a transparent nuclear power program, it would make sense to provide them with modern equipment to make their plants as safe and efficient as possible.
A female Viagra is on the way
A women's version of the anti-impotence drug Viagra will be available in five years, the head of US chemical giant Pfizer said in an interview published in Frankfurt."At the latest, the drug will be on the market in five years," Henry McKinnell told the weekly Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
He said research on the new drug was running at full swing, but he did not explain what effect it would have on women who took the new medication.
From what I understand about it, Viagra doesn't cause arousal, just enhances the ability to achieve an erection. Maybe it's just been too long, but what good would this do a woman?
A new experiment has developed electric current from tapwater.
A team of Canadian researchers has found that an electrical current can be produced between the ends of a microscopic channel when a fluid flows through it.The technique offers a potential source of clean, non-polluting electric power with a variety of possible uses, ranging from powering small electronic devices such as calculators or mobile phones to vast stations that can contribute to the national grid.
Unfortunately, the article does not detail the total power generated, and how it compares with the power required to force the water through the channels. It does say that water simply flowing through the filter will generate the electricity, so the process shouldn't take high powered pumps, but if it is no more efficient than a standard hydroelectric turbine, then it really isn't all that exciting.
Even if the discovery does not turn out to be a practical source of energy for generating electricity, it does show that we are still looking for, and more importantly finding, alternative energy sources.
Are they charging this kid because he proke the law, or because he embarrassed the crap out of the FAA, and the DHS?
I'm betting his legal defense fund gets a lot of donations.
The UN Security Council unanimously agreed to the US sponsored resolution on Iraq. In essence, the the US is in a 'can't lose' position. If the UN helps with Iraqi reconstruction, great; if they don't, they are shown to be ineffectual, irrelevant, and hypocritical. Once again, they've given President Bush what he wanted, something they had no intention of doing. Their underestimation of his acumen continues to cost them.
But there's another factor at work here, one that needs exploration. The UNSC has agreed to support the reconstruction of Iraq, without requiring a specific timetable, increased authority, or anything else pushed by France, Germany, and the rest.
Why?
In short, had they continued to balk, then they would have been demonstrating their increasing irrelevance.
Here's the thing; the unanimous passage of this resolution signals that things are going well in Iraq, much better than France or Germany thought possible. As long as they thought the US was stepping into another Viet Nam, their best strategy lay in sniping from the sidelines, allowing the US to flounder, digging itself in deeper, until at last we would have to crawl to the UN for help. By agreeing to the new resolution, they abandoned that strategy, and that has telegraphed their evaluation of the situation in Iraq. If it were a quagmire, as most of the press would have us believe, France and Germany would have at the very least abstained from the vote, hoping to add to the US troubles. Since they approved the measure, that signals that they know things are going well in Iraq, and that they are rapidly losing leverage. The only way for the UN to maintain any relevance now is to be seen as allied to the US efforts, rather than opposed.
Additional pressure was put on the Security Council by the Japanese, who agreed to donate just over $1 billion to the Iraqi reconstruction effort. By making their move when they did, Japan demonstrated to the UN just how dangerously close they were to becoming totally irrelevant. Just as importantly, they also demonstrated that the US has political and economic partners that do not answer to the EU, something that is probably keeping Chirac up late at night.
OK, I'm not a huge baseball fan, but even I can see that if your starter struggles badly in the 7th inning of the 7th game of the League Championship Series, you don't leave him in there to blow a 3 run lead.
I'm sure Fox is devastated now. Instead of 2 huge draws that would have made this World Series a record breaker, they get the Marlins and the Yankees.
Yawn.
Sure, let's make half of it a grant and half of it a loan. That way, everyone who accused us of spending blood for oil can turn around and say "I told you so!"
Oddly, it's the people who made that accusation that are most in favor of the amendment.
On second thought, maybe it isn't so odd.
More amendments to the Iraq Reconstruction bill
Just to remind us that it's business as usual in Washington, here's a list of all amendments to the Iraq Reconstruction bill from the US Senate. Highlights include:
Sleep's highly overrated anyway.
Besides, I can always nap on my way to work, right?
(No, I don't car-pool. Why do you ask?)
Hey folks, sorry, but it'll be awhile before I get back to regular posting. I've got too many resposibilities and not enough time, and something had to give.
This is what gave.
Y'all take care.
It had it all; tension, controversy, a little bad blood, blown calls, great calls, great plays, turnovers, and two, count 'em, two overtimes! And the best part was I only paid 6 bucks to see it!
Nope, not those silly Volunteers, the Northview Cougars played against their arch-rivals, the Sevierville Bears, on Saturday night, coming away with a 13-12 double overtime win.
Dog gone, I love football!
Why should the state have ANY say in who marries whom? Isn't it a personal decision? Instead of forcing states to recognize gay marriages, let's take the opposite approach and get states out of the marriage business altogether.
What business is it of theirs in the first place? Reduce the civil component of marriage to a contract, similar to articles of incorporation, binding the parties together as a legal entity, and granting certain benefits and responsibilities to that entity, including survivor benefits, dissolution agreements etc. By removing restrictions on the number or sex of the parties, you eliminate any discrimination against non-traditional marriages.
And the best part of the whole thing is that if you want a traditional, religious mariage, that is still your option.
Everybody wins.
Monday, on NPR, I heard a diplomat from Syria complain about the designation of Hammas members as terrorists.
"I am confused," he said. "How do you define terrorists? We call them freedom fighters!"
Well, Abdullah, I'll be happy to help you out. You see, America has a history of freedom fighters. We used militias in our fight for freedom from the British. We also sent freedom fighters to help other people free themselves from oppression. As a Tennessean, I'm very familiar with our Volunteer tradition, so I think I have a handle on the difference between a "freedom fighter" and terrorist.
I'll keep it simple for you, so you can follow along.
A freedom fighter fights against other warriors. He attacks military targets. While he uses guerilla tactics, he acknowledges some rules of engagement, and does his best to avoid collateral damage. As an example, in the seige of the Alamo, both armies made sure to protect the non-combatants caught in the crossfire. As another example, look at the recent US bombing of Baghdad. The stray missiles falling into civilian areas were a big news story precisely because they were so rare. Every effort was made to spare the non combatant population.
A terrorist, on the other hand, deliberately seeks out non combatants as his target. He doesn't attack a military target; he straps explosives to his body, then goes out and strikes against weak targets, usually women and children. An innate coward, he hasn't the stomach to face a warrior in combat, instead he slaughters the innocent through stealth and deception. He accepts no rules of engagement, preferring instead total war.
The difference is the same as the one between a lion and a rabid dog. Both are killers, but only one needs to be put down by a civilized society.
Any questions?
Let's see. As I write this, the market is up 123 points today at 9754, which represents a 34.6% increase from this time last year, and puts it in striking distance of its level when Bush took office.
Jobless claims are the lowest they've been in 8 months.
Jobs are being created for the first time in 8 months.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 5% last quarter.
Even the budget deficit looks to come in some 70 billion less than expected.
In short, if it really is about the economy, then democrats are in trouble.
Bob Graham withdrew his bid for the Democratic nomination, citing a late entry into the race, and an inability to raise money.
Funny, Gen Clark waited much later, and raised more money in a shorter time. Maybe it was just you, Bob.
After all, you never gave us any reason to pick you out of the crowd. All you had was the tired rhetoric of the left to run on. Sure, you attacked Bush, but who didn't? Dean was meaner, Lieberman was more moderate, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun had better minority creds, Kucinich was loopier, Kerry and Clark more military, which left you with Gephardt looking for scraps from the table.
Tell you what; next time you want to run on a national platform, try having something unique to say. It might help people remeber that you're actually running, you know?
I've been slapped around by some who believe in the global warming scenario. I take this position because the facts do not jibe with the theory in many particulars, but I'm often hit with, "But so many scientists do support the theory that it must be true!"
That's not the case. In fact the exact opposite is true. Think about it for a second. If everything we thought was true was true, there would be no ne discoveries. Every major scientific advance came from somebody questioning the established theory, and turning out to be correct. Additionally, every time this has happened, the scientific establishment has resisted the new idea strenuously, despite the facts.
The latest example came yesterday, when the Nobel Prize for Medicine was announced.
What the article doesn't say is that Lauterbur ran into significant trouble even publishing the paper for which he just received the Prize. Nature rejected it as "not of significantly wide significance," before later changing their mind. On NPR's All Things Considered (audio link) Lauterbur says that "The preconceptions were so strong, that people could not only see the results, but be doing it themselves, and still not believe it."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my point. Scientists are human. They become attached to their own theories, and will defend them when presented with new theories, even if the facts support the new theories. This is the fatal flaw behind all arguments which are based on authority instead of the facts. So don't tell me that x number of scientists believe this, so it must be true; if you want to convince me, you'd better have the facts to answer my questions.
On the heels of the last story, I'm really beginning to worry. Take a peek at this:
Scruggs was accused of not getting psychological help for 12-year-old Daniel Scruggs before he hanged himself. During the trial, witnesses said she also kept a filthy house and didn't take care of her son's hygiene.
The story goes on:
But Scruggs' lawyers contend Daniel's death was due to bullying at school. Witnesses testified he was pushed, taunted and spit on at school.Norris said prosecutors never presented evidence linking the condition of the home to the suicide. He portrayed Judith Scruggs as a loving single mother who worked two jobs -- one full-time as a teacher's aide in Daniel's school and the other part-time at a Wal-Mart.
Scruggs acknowledged Daniel would sometimes have body odor or bad breath and would soil himself to get out of school. She said she frequently told Daniel to take showers, but sometimes he did not, and she said she could not force him to bathe.
Daniel missed 45 days of school the year he died and had been late 29 other times. Scruggs told police Daniel was afraid of bullies who had kicked and punched him. The boy kept knives in his closet out of fear.
I wonder why the prosecuters didn't go after school officials, who must have known about the bullying. Or, I don't know, how about going after the bullies themselves? Certainly they contributed to the kid's poor mental condition!
But no, they chose to prosecute a single mother working two jobs.
I'm a single father, and my house can get pretty messy at times. Maybe I ought to get a lawyer. You know, just in case some bully picks on my kid.
Here's a surprise:
A South Carolina woman sentenced to 12 years in prison for homicide as a result of suffering a stillbirth has lost a bid to reverse her conviction. In a one-line order issued Monday, the US Supreme Court let stand a South Carolina Supreme Court decision upholding her conviction for homicide by child abuse. The woman in question had used cocaine during her pregnancy.
Hmmm. What if she went bike riding and fell. If the baby was stillborn, would she be guilty of murder?
South Carolina officials defend the prosecution and the state law as an attempt to deter pregnant women from engaging in risky behavior.
I guess she would in South Carolina.
It seems to me that "risky behavior" in this context is just as offensive as "woman's health" in most abortion statutes. It's too vague, too open to deliberate distortion based on political ideology.
The professor has a link to filing papers for Hillary in 2004. It's possible that the filing was done by a Draft Hillary type campaign, but given the rumors swirling over the last few weeks, I wouldn't count out a Rodham run for the White House.
Which brings up an interesting question: Will she run as a Clinton or a Rodham, or will she repeat her NY strategy, and run as Hillary!(™)?
I got a paying gig to do some technical writing over the next few weeks, so blogging is liable to suffer as satisfying my profit motive replaces recreation at the top of my list of priorities.
I won't abandon y'all totally, but expect more quick hit type posts.
I should've gone with my head instead of my gut, particularly since the Vol defensive line appeared to lack any guts, getting thoroughly dominated by the Auburn offensive line.
Over 6 yards per carry?
Please!
And I have to wonder at a Vol offense which gave the ball to a running back 9 times over an entire football game. I guess Randy Sanders missed my rants, and decided to give me something to work with.
For once, though, I can't say too much about Clausen. Sure, he threw an interception to end our hopes, but he also threw 2 touchdowns in the 4th to give us that hope. He's competent, but he'll never be a pressure quarterback.
I didn't see the game, so I can't give a full report card, so I'll just leave it at this. Auburn played like most folks thought in the preseason that they would. UT had a strange game plan, totally abandoning the run. If Clausen were the quarterback the local papers claim he is, we would have won. But he's not, and we lost.
This is a tough pick, since both teams have performed inconsistently this season. Auburn has been a tremendous disappointment, starting the season as a National Championship contender, and now they're trying to salvage their season. Tennessee has looked good at times, and conquered their arch nemesis, but have also looked uninspired at times.
Since the game is at Auburn, my head tells me to go with the Tigers. They have the most to prove, and should have some confidence with two wins, albeit over less than stellar competition. Their preseason rankings weren't something that just happened; they have a lot of talent on their squad, and it's only a matter of time before they put it all together.
But my gut tells me that UT is the better bet. The defense is strong, particularly against the run, despite their lackluster performance against South Carolina, and the offensive line is due for a breakout game. And we can't forget Mr. Colquitt, either. In a close game, he can be the decision maker.
In football, guts beat brains by a narrow margin: UT 28 Auburn 24
Hosting Matters just changed my server location. UNfortunately, back when I installed MT, I used the server ZIP instead of my domain name (since I didn't have one yet) which meant that I was posting to the blog on the old server, but the domain name was linked to the new server. Even worse, some of the internal links were pointing to the old server, so even after I fixed the easy links, my posts were still disappearing into an electronic cul de sac.
A bit more searching, and I've finally found all their little hiding places, and now I'm back on line.
I think.
I'll let you know in the morning.
There's no WMD in Iraq. That's what they told me on NPR last night, and that's what my newspaper said this morning, and I can trust them right?
Apparently not.
Andrew Sullivan has read the report and excerpted it here.
A couple of highlights to whet your appetite:
Read Sullivan, then read the report for yourself. Then tell me that there's no bias in the media.
Rush Limbaugh resigned from ESPN after daring to suggest that a racial bias exists in the sports media.
Like that's a big shock or something. Sports media has always paid attention to race, using it to create stories.
"There aren't enough black coaches."
"There aren't enough black quarterbacks."
Anybody remember Holmes-Cooney? That fight was built on race. Because Cooney was white, the purse for the fight when from maybe 8 million to 20 million.
As long as the political slant on the story falls in with the politically correct line, then all is well.
But do you think we'll ever see a story titled "There aren't enough white players in the NBA?"
I won't hold my breath.
So, Limbaugh is correct when he suggests that there is a racial agenda in the sports media. However, he's out of his mind to suggest that McNabb is overhyped because of his race. Limbaugh said that the Eagles success was more due to the defense, than McNabb. While you could make an argument for that position, that in itself does not support the contention that McNabb is overrated. Right or wrong, the quarterback always gets the lion's share of the glory when his team does well. It has absolutely nothing to do with his color. Besides, if the sports media was looking to hype a black quarterback, they'd be all over Steve McNair. </Gratuitous Titans Plug>
So Limbaugh drew a false connection between two unrelated trends. Does that make him a racist?
Nope. His comment in no way reflected any hint or belief that McNabb's abilities at quarterback had anything to do with his race. Instead, he said that the sports media's promotion of McNabb's quarterbacking skills was due to his race, in effect, accusing the sports media of racism. And as shown above, that's an accusation that has legs.
When you want to create a bigger emotional impact.
Much has been made about this quote from Larry Johnson during a PBS interview:
Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst.
Given that Plame is only 40 years old, it would seem that Johnson's statement is ridiculous. However, like they say on late night TV infomercials, an apt comparison to major media news organizations these days, "But wait! There's more!"
But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
A light begins to dawn. If Johnson quit in 89, and worked there for four years, that means he started training with Plame in 85. So, at most, she's been with the CIA for 18 years.
So he's lying, or mistaken, right?
Wrong.
He's just being deceptive. By Johnson's account, Plame was a covert CIA operative in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. Not 30 years in duration, but during parts of three decades. Three decades sounds much more impressive than 18 years.