Rebel and a Runner

Climate science, political hay for the asses in DC

2011-11-28T09:26:00.006-05:00

3 years ago, I had some things to say about politicians lying to me for their own gain. I hindsight, I missed my opportunity to point out the fact that, when Obama's party finally agreed to increase domestic drilling for oil, their hand-picked company (BP, who subcontracted to Transocean) to perform drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was the one with more regulatory violations than all of its major competitors combined. Cynic that I am, I say that the selection was made specifically because it was felt that Transocean would cause a problem that would allow factions in the government to cite a reason for banning domestic drilling.

2 years ago, I weighed in on the subjects of climate change and the global warming movement, specifically stating that the science didn't support the conclusions being drawn and that, in my opinion, the motivations were purely financial in nature. In short, it was about the green, just not the green you think...

Well, now the second round of "Climategate" emails are coming out and we're seeing more and more evidence that the pro-catastrophic climate change movement was merely about getting governments around the world to fund projects designed to "stem the tide of global warming". If you're looking for a good article to read about this, here's a place to start: Jim Lacey's Scientists Behaving Badly.

One thing that I'm very curious to see is what happens to Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann as a result of the latest round of emails being released. Mann, if you remember, was the subject of multiple conduct investigations as a result of the first release of emails. While Mann was initially cleared of any wrongdoing, these new emails will undoubtedly trigger a subsequent investigation and I have a feeling that PennState, already reeling from the controversy surrounding the football program, might not be as forgiving as they were 18 months ago.

Coming to terms on politics

2011-05-18T09:14:00.006-04:00

There are two terms which get bandied about in modern politics. They are "conservative" and "liberal" and they're often used to describe a person's political leanings. However, I think we brutalize them.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of the word conservative is "disposed to preserve existing conditions... and to limit change", while the definitions for liberal include both "favorable to progress or reform" and "open-minded", "tolerant", and "not bound by traditional or conventional ideas". The point of note here is that the definition of "conservative" does not include "closed-minded", however, in modern thought, this definition seems to be implied. Conversely, the word "liberal" does not mean "revolutionary" though more than a few might disagree with me.

You will note here that neither term comes with any sort of financial connotation. Liberal does not mean "out to discharge the contents of the public coffers for 'the greater good' at the drop of a hat" nor does conservative mean "willing to part with the blood and lives of 'the underprivileged' rather than spend a dollar to help them". So, why do we use those terms to describe a person's financial tendencies?

I have a feeling that there isn't a lot of competition in this market space...

2011-02-23T15:14:00.003-05:00

Because my Dad would have appreciate things like this too… Matthews International

I like the pitch line: Standard of Excellence in Cremation Solutions. However, the informational videos, as well as the name of the equipment -- the SMOKE BUSTER -- are just too damn funny.

Tell us, why is that a good thing?

2011-02-17T11:26:00.004-05:00

Once upon a time, programmers had a mantra which went "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand". Said mantra was used to justify the sloppy programming practice of not commenting your code. This "enlightened" behavior made it difficult when even the original author went back to update their own code a few months later (and I won't even discuss the chaos and confusion that ensued whenever some poor soul, who did not write the code, ever had to go through it to make updates). The ultimate goal of the "zero documentation" approach was to ensure job security. If you were the only one who could understand some arcane application that was mission-critical, then you were indispensable.

Today, we ran into Java's Spring Framework.

Now, for those who don't know, a framework is a structured approach to abstracting general elements of an application in development and they can range from a set of guiding principles (such as MVC) to a full set of programming tools (like Hibernate or Spring). However, after looking through the code, we decided that Spring seems to be nothing more than a product of the old programmer's job security approach coupled with years of evolution.

Of course, we're engineers so, in an effort to make sure that we weren't missing anything -- especially the obvious -- we were "off to the cloud" to see what could be learned about this new adversary.

The first stop wound up being our last. Right there, about halfway through the first page, we saw a gem that not only summed it all up for us, but let us know that our initial thoughts were correct.

"The Spring Framework is the only framework available in Java which offers managed data access environments outside of an application server or container." - Wikipedia page on the Java Spring Framework

That's like saying Microsoft Windows is the only operating system that provides the blue screen of death when the kernel encounters a fatal error.

The Dichotomy

2010-10-15T10:42:00.002-04:00

America's political scene is an exercise in contradiction. On one hand we have a party of Creationists who espouse a "survival of the fittest" agenda. On the other hand, we have a party of Evolutionists who espouse an agenda of "intelligent design".

No wonder things are a mess.

VABO: you know, that's not a bad idea

2010-10-13T05:45:00.005-04:00

A friend of mine just hit me with a new term: VABO (Vote Against Barack Obama). I'm not really a big fan of voting against people, but this year I'm all over this mantra.

Back in 2008, I voted the straight Libertarian party ticket. Why? Because I wanted to vote for people instead of against others. In the ensuing 23 months, I have lost my job, endured the national debt exploding at an unparalleled rate, and watched the "do-gooders" try to legislate "the right thing".

This year, I'm going to vote the straight Republican ticket for two reasons. The first is because, finally, the fiscal conservative elements in the party (a.k.a., the Tea Partiers) have had enough and finally ousted the stranglehold that the bible-thumping, crypto-fascists have had on the party since 2002. The second is because its time that we made it clear to the Democrats (the aforementioned "do-gooders") that their socialist, "we are the ruling class, you are the unwashed, proletarian masses" agenda is unacceptable.

Still, the country is going to remain up Shit's Creek until we can get a major 3rd party into the mix, one that combines fiscal responsibility with social freedoms. The problem is that ideals like that really only appeal to a very small set of the population -- the ones who want to take care of themselves and don't want to be told what to do. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of the people in this country want (or need) to be kept, like pets, or they want to be able to tell other people how to live their lives.

the ole phishin' line

2010-06-11T07:42:00.003-04:00

Got a good laugh this morning when I received the following message on Facebook:

Subject: Frank Moore

Dear ,

I am Barrister Amed Dogbe, personal attorney to Late Mr J.C Moore, a national of your country,Who died in a motor accident along Kpalime express Road and left some huge amount of money with a bank here in Lome Togo West Africa, valued at US$3.5 million dollars. I have contacted you to assist me.please call me ( +228-9177735 )
Reply to my Private email adresse for more details./
( dogbe203@hotmail.fr )

Mr. Amed Dogbe.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU HE WILL GIVE U SUCCESS.

Once I stopped laughing, I decided to check the name (Amed Dogbe) against known scams and it seems that I'm a victim of a bleeding edge phisher. Yay for me!

Anyway, I reported the scammer to Facebook. But I thought that I'd post this so that other people can be aware of the name.

Some background on my position on climate change

2010-01-14T00:00:00.002-05:00

Now that the Climategate (I hate that term) scandal has broken, the Copenhagen cabal has wrapped up, and the hubbub is over, I wanted to explain to those of you where I'm coming from on this issue.

I was still in college when the first stories of "global warming" started coming out. Being a Geography major, the stories caught my attention because it essentially dealt with my field of study. However, the more and more I read about it, the more skeptical I became; not only did I question the science that its proponents were basing their findings on, the data that they claimed supported their findings was thoroughly suspect.

My questions of the science began with the fact that the Earth's climate has always been in flux and continued through claims that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the earth's temperature to rise. While I won't argue with the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels can have an impact on the climate, the assertions coming from global warming’s proponents would have you believe that this is the primary driver. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact is that there are not only a multitude of factors which impact the climate, but the primary driver of the temperature on this planet is the amount of energy the planet receives from the sun. Unfortunately, everything that I’ve read about climate change, the assumption is that the amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun is constant, which is flawed. The amount of energy the sun emits fluctuates over time. Furthermore, the percentage of the sun’s energy that the Earth receives also fluctuates over time. Interstellar interference (inner planets, comets, asteroids, or dust) has an impact. Another factor is the Earth’s own magnetic field which protects the planet from much of the energy the sun emits.

Now, something that is not very well known is this: the Earth is in the stages of a geomagnetic reversal. In short, the planet’s polarity is going to change which will cause compasses to point south, rather than north. One of the features of a geomagnetic reversal is that the magnetic field around the planet declines before it outright disappears. Geophysicists estimate that the planet’s magnetic field is about a third as strong as it is during its “peak” and that it has declined between 10% to 15% over the last 150 years. Obviously, a weaker magnetic field means that the Earth is receiving more energy from the sun and would therefore increase the temperatures on the planet.

And that’s just where I have questions about the science. The validity of the data being used in these models is questionable at best. Let's begin with the now infamous "hockey stick" graph. For those who are not intimately familiar with the graph, it depicts the temperature variances in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1961-1990 30-year average. The graph's data begins in the year 1000 AD and runs to 1999. For the majority of the graph, the line trends downward at a gentle slope. Then, in approximately 1910, it starts a very conspicuous increase.

Here's the problem. The mercury thermometer was not invented until 1714. Furthermore, thermometers were considered highly scientific instrumentation and use of them would not become widespread throughout Western society until the middle of the 1800’s. Their use in Africa, South America, Australia, and a majority of Asia did not come about until much later. The bottom line here is that we cannot have more than 300 years worth of temperature records and the reality is that we actually have much less.

At this point, a reasonable person would more than likely ask "Where did 700 years' (or more) worth of temperature data come from?" Well, the answer is that they made it up. The fact is that Mann has been quite open about using extrapolated historical temperature data developed by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that draws on various sources including tree rings, coral, ice cores and "historical sources".

Now, I have yet to read a definite work on how tree rings data directly correlate to air temperature -- I would stipulate that they correlate to sunlight and precipitation data much better than temperature. As for ice cores, there are far too many assumptions that need to be made (the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, the variances in precipitation data, the erosion factor, and location of the sample points) in order for those to render valid temperature data. I won't even begin to get what may or may not constitute "historical sources". Regardless, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which advises the UN and other governmental bodies on climate issues, used the results of Mann's work as the basis for their policy guidance documentation.

Unfortunately, using extrapolated data that could be inherently flawed might be the least of the problems here. The CRU's data set also made use of "adjusted" temperature data that interpolated data points in areas with "insufficient" coverage. This would not be so serious of an issue were it not for the fact that the CRU has been extremely reluctant towards making their data sets available for public review. Therefore, when independent researchers have attempted to duplicate the results of Mann's work, they have had to use nothing but published raw data. Not surprisingly, these have not returned the same results. In fact, their results showed that any temperature increases were slight, at most, and no where near the catastrophic levels predicted.

However, what really sets my sensabilities on edge is that any results which counter the claims made in Mann's work have been met with harsh criticism by Phil Jones (director of the CRU at the University of East Anglia), Gavin Schmidt (a researcher at NASA), and others connected to them. From what I gather, it seems that the only way in which you can generate the results that Mann predicted is to use the CRU's data set which they will not share.

Everything changed when a 62 MB archive file containing a collection of emails and data sets from the CRU was posted to the Internet.

The first thing that the files did was expose the CRU's data set to its first mass public review. The differences between the CRU's adjusted data and the raw data from which it was drawn were startling. The CRU clearly "cherry-picked" data points that it felt supported its argument while omitting blocks of data were incongruent its claims by classifying them as "outliers".

But the truly damning content was found in the body of the email messages. Not only did they reveal that the adjusted data had been manipulated in order to eliminate discordant data, but they disclosed a centralized and concerted effort led by Jones and Schmidt on behalf of the climate alarmists (the term de jour for those trumpeting the "global warming" message) to control the tenor and content of all discussion regarding climate change. Scientific journals, conferences, and even the mass media were all targeted to make sure that only the pro-alarmist message was broadcast.

Going back to our reasonable person, the question then becomes "Why would scientists, people who, ostensibly, claim to be in search of the truth, do such things?" Unfortunately, the best answer I can give you is money.

Back in the day, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time drinking at a brew pub a couple of blocks away from MIT. About 8 years ago, a guy came in and I struck up a conversation with him. The subject of climate change came up and he mentioned he had done some research into climate change and that his results showed basically that the alarmists were the ones producing most of the hot air, not human activity. However, there was one problem. No "credible scientific journal" wanted to publish his work. Furthermore, he couldn’t get additional funding to continue his work, partly because he couldn’t get published, but partly because he was espousing something that ran contrary to the dominant paradigm. His cynical take on it was that there was too much money being invested in "global warming" and that anyone who rocked the boat would disrupt that flow. Back then I was naïve enough to think things like that didn’t happen in science. Today, I don’t doubt for a minute that they do.

Now, I'm sure that what I'm about to say will probably make me sound like an utter cynic (at best) or a total conspiracy theorist nut (at worst), but think about it this way: imagine if a cure for cancer were discovered next month. What would happen to all of the thousands of people in just the United States whose careers are focused on cancer research? For the most part, these are all well-educated people who earn above the median household income. Most of them would be out of work. Sad as it is to say, the cancer research industry has more of a vested interest in not curing cancer than it does in curing cancer.

Economists, part of the problem

2009-12-21T22:43:00.004-05:00

I'm going to interrupt my rant on climate change to tell a great joke I heard years ago.

After shipwreck, three world-renowned academics find themselves marooned on an island with a case of canned food. As they start to get hungry, they brainstorm on problem of opening the cans.

The first academic, a chemist, says, "If we leave a can in the sun, Boyle's Law tells me that the contents will increase in pressure and the can will burst."

The second, a mathematician, says, "We'll need to know about the how the can is made so that we can determine how best to locate it so that it will burst in the shortest period of time while spilling the least amount of contents."

The third, an economist, says "Let's just assume that we have a can opener..."

The point here is to illustrate that economists, especially academic ones, make a lot of horribly flawed assumptions about the state of things, specifically considering variables as constants for the purposes of evaluation.

Now, consider the impact that economists have on government.

It is about the green, just not the green you think

2009-12-15T07:00:00.005-05:00

About a year ago, I created a monster. I introduced my son to YouTube.

Now, unlike his dad, he does not care to search for nostalgic content that allows him to relive his youth, nor is he looking for the latest political satire, he's a 5-year old on a mission: He wants nature programming, damnit!

I can tell you that, since we started roaming through YouTube, I have watched quite a bit about whales (most notably blue whales and sperm whales), squid (mostly the giant variety), and, recently, dinosaurs. Now, I learned a lot about whales and dinosaurs when I was a kid. Not being allowed to watch a lot of TV, I spent a lot of afternoons as a kid reading every sort of educational book I could get my hands on. However, there was always one thing that always struck me as kinda strange, in everything I read about dinosaurs (and all of the other large reptilian life) and the era in which they lived, it always referred to them living in jungles and swamps. There was never any talk about dinosaurs living in deserts or even temperate climates -- the only habitats that are ever mentioned are tropical and sub-tropical ones. Why is that?

The answer is that, 65 million years ago, the Earth's climate was much warmer. In fact, the average temperature on the planet was 4° C (7.2° F) warmer than modern temperatures. This, in turn, raised the humidity levels on the planet as well.

Now, a funny thing happened between now and then. In fact, it's happened several times: the Earth's temperature dropped, drastically, causing periods of extended glaciation over areas beyond the polar circles. We call these periods "Ice Ages", the last of which ended roughly 10,000 years ago. This leads to two simple questions.

The first is obvious, "Why did the ice age end?" The answer being that it ended because the Earth's temperature rose significantly, thereby causing the ice sheets which were covering large amounts of the northern hemisphere to melt.

The second question should then be the obvious, "What caused the Earth's temperature to rise?" The answer being that we really don't know what caused it. However, we certainly know that we can rule out human activity -- 10,000 years ago, humans had wood-fueled fire for energy, they did not have petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines or coal-fired power plants.

So, where am I going with this? I am trying to prove something that you don't hear very often, if at all, from the "global warming" movement and that is this: the Earth's climate has been changing since the planet was formed and that it will continue to change in the future, with or without the impact of humans. This runs directly counter to the rhetoric of the "global warming" movement which would have you believe that human activity is the dominant operant in climate change and that humans are currently on a path which will irreparably destroy the planet's ecosystem, thereby making life on Earth improbable at best.

Why I'm skeptical of this is simple, I just don't believe the message I'm being given because A) I don't trust the science that I'm being told justifies it, and B) it's too alarmist. To me, when you synthesize the message down to its basic point, it doesn't seem very different from "Repent, the end is near", something you hear from a lot religious movements, especially those which spread disinformation in order to not only sell their ideas but to speed up their adoption. Maybe that's why Michael Crichton wrote about the Cult of Global Warming. As such, I really feel a need to question the motivations behind the movement.

As I wrote last year, altruistic movements like saving the planet do not gain traction without there being a chance for someone to make a significant financial gain. Well, last month, the BBC (of all sources) gave me the answer I was looking for: Al Gore is a partner in a venture capital firm which invests heavily in alternative energy companies. Regardless of how Gore wants to defend his actions, the fact is that the man is lobbying governments around the world to change their energy policies and he's seeking to profit from these changes. That makes him a lobbyist. Nothing more.

So, as I said, it is about the green, just not the green they want you to think of...

Banks as stores?

2009-12-12T12:00:00.000-05:00

I just went to my bank's web site to find the location of an ATM. As I was browsing the page, I had the thought "where's the Store Locator link?". That got me thinking, what are banks, really, other than stores where you take out or put in money? There's the fact that they have an implied responsibility to take care of your money, but, when you think about it, a transaction at a bank is really no different than a transaction with a clerk at a store.

Congratulations, Joe!

2009-12-09T08:07:00.005-05:00

He did it! My friend Joe Kennedy got his name on the ballot for the US Senate special election to replace Ted Kennedy.

Joe is a Libertarian running as an independent candidate in this election. If you live in Massachusetts, I urge you to go to his web site (http://joekennedyforsenate.com/) and review his platform. Help take back government from the special interests and make it accountable to the people.

Are we really that stupid?

2009-11-24T09:44:00.002-05:00

It's a simple question and one I ask because I never cease to be amazed at how dumb people can be.

But, more importantly, I ask it because there are times when I am absolutely appalled when the actions of our so-called leaders (or those who would seek to become one) do nothing but mock our intelligence.

Case in point, in 2006, the Democratic National Committee ran on a one-issue platform: Stop the War! That was it. Almost no focus was given to things like the economy, health care, energy costs, or education; it was all about "the War". As such, every Democratic candidate in an election for a federal office ran on that platform. This made sense, as Congress are the ones who control the budget.

Unfortunately, just about every Democratic candidate for a state office here in New Hampshire made that part of their platform as well. Ask them about their platform and they'd eventually mention the war (in Iraq, they couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan). This stunned me. The New Hampshire state legislature has no control over the United States Military. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. Why were these candidates making this an issue?

Well, I guess I overestimated the general public because the Democrats won a historic victory, taking the control of both houses of the New Hampshire state legislature.

This brings me to something I saw today. It was an ad for Steve Pagliuca. Pagliuca is a candidate in the Massachusetts special election for US Senate. In his ad, Pagliuca explains that "Massachusetts is hurting" and he talks about how his plan will help turn around the economy in the state.

Again, I'm confused. Can someone please tell me how electing this clown to a federal office is going to directly help the economy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? The short answer is that it can't. It's meaningless grandstanding. If he really wanted to help redevelop the Bay State's economy, he'd be better served running for a state-wide office in Massachusetts and not running for US Senate.

But there I go again, overestimating the intelligence of the general public.

Minions, Lackeys, and Henchmen, who else?

2009-11-12T12:09:00.003-05:00

In the world of the nefarious, there is a distinct pecking order.

At the top level, we have the Godfather. He has bosses who report to him and his is the final word of authority on all things. Below him, we have the bosses. Bosses come with lots of different titles, whether they go by don, jefe, or the man, these guys are sort of like the regional governors.

Then, then there are the underlings. These are the soldiers who make things happens. At the bottom, there are the minions. These guys are the cannon fodder, the red shirts. Next, there are lackeys, the grunts that lead the minions. They don't have to be smart, they just need to be good at getting people to get things done. Above them, there are the henchmen, who are higher up the food chain than lackeys but their roles aren't nearly as well defined. These guys can work for underbosses or directly for the bosses, but it seems as though they don't usually have people command of other guys.

It seems that I'm missing things. If you can think of what, let me know.

4 rules to live by

2009-09-01T07:43:00.004-04:00

Four rules which I have found helpful to living an easier life.

1. Don't take yourself too seriously.
2. Don't be easily offended.
3. Don't take it personally.
4. Know when to say "who gives a fuck!"

Hank Aaron*

2009-07-27T14:21:00.012-04:00

Not sure how many of you heard this, but in a recent interview, Hank Aaron apparently said that he thinks baseball players linked to performance enhancer usage should have an asterisk placed next to their records.

Here's a link to the story: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/news/story?id=4355886

I find this humorous for two reasons.

The first is that, thanks to mass media-fueled ignorance, the general public considers all performance enhancers "steroids". However, anabolic steroids have only been listed as a controlled substance since 1990. That's less than 20 years. So, does Aaron think that only people who used controlled anabolic steroids should have an asterisk? Hmm, if that's the case, then we're not talking about a paragon of the game being interested in protecting its integrity, we're talking about a bitter old man protecting his own legacy.

The second begins with the assumption that he actually means that anyone who used what is considered a "performance enhancing drug" should have an asterisk. If that's the case, then, guess what, Hank gets an asterisk. Performance enhancing drugs aren't just comprised solely of anabolic steroids, they also contain a wide variety of stimulants (commonly referred to in the media as simply "amphetamines"). Unfortunately, Hank's problem here is that he's even on record as admitting that he used amphetamines during a game.

Here's a link to that too: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4192628

Bottom line, Hark Aaron is just embarrassing himself here and he needs to understand that he's standing on a very slippery slope. One that might drop him down with those he likes to think he's above.

Amazing innings

2009-05-14T11:46:00.000-04:00

Recently, the Red Sox had an inning where they scored 12 runs before they recorded a single out. It set the American League record and tied the major league record. Still it wasn't my favorite Sox inning of all time.

That honor would belong to the home half of the 1st inning from a game between the Sox and the Marlins on June 27th of 2003. This is when Sox scored 14 runs on 13 hits and 4 walks. They chased two pitchers (Pavano and Tejera) before recording an out and batted around twice. It was truly one for the ages.

However, one of my all-time favorite Red Sox innings featured them in the field. It occurred last summer in a game against the Cincinnati Reds on June 14th. With Tim Wakefield on the mound, here is the pitch by pitch sequence:

Brandon Phillips batting
Pitch 1: Phillips singled to center

Adam Dunn batting
Pitch 2: Ball, Phillips stole second, Phillips out at third trying to advance on play
Pitch 3: Dunn homered to right

Edwin Encarnacion batting
Pitch 4: Strike (looking)
Pitch 5: Encarnacion singled to center

Joey Votto batting
Pitch 6: Votto grounded into double play, first to shortstop, Encarnacion out at second

1 inning,
4 batters,
6 pitches,
3 hits,
1 run,
no one left on base.

Wow.

Why I don't trust the government

2009-03-23T09:12:00.010-04:00

or

A funny thing happened trying to learn about something completely different

Back in 2007, I was working at Fidelity and I was trying to get in touch with a co-worker who I had a worked with on a project several years before. The co-worker was Steve Ganis, the Vice President in charge of Fidelity's Anti-Money Laundering Office. There was only 1 problem, I couldn't find him. He wasn't answering voicemails or emails and he wasn't at his desk. Then, I overheard a conversation in the next cubicle about him so, I asked "what going on with Steve?"

The reaction I got could only be likened to the one the emperor must given the small child when asked why he was naked. The response I got back was veiled to say the least. But the short answer was that Fidelity was being sued by a former employee and that Steve had been named in the suit. I also learned that there had been a "big article in the paper" and, as such, Steve had been reassigned (a lovely bit of corporate double-speak) until the matter was resolved.

So, I did a Google search to try and find the article using "Steve Ganis investigation". I didn't find the article I was looking for, but I did find something else. What I came up at the top of my search was the following link: The Mystery of the "lost" Mena Report, Gray Money: the Continued Cover-up.

Being someone who likes hearing conspiracy theories, I printed out the story and it promptly sat on my desk for about 3 months before I got tired of looking at it and decided to bring it home to read it. Once I started, it was hard to put it down. Written in 2001, the article's purpose was to publish the results of an independent investigation by the Arkansas Commission into the activities going on in Mena, Arkansas in the early to mid-1980's and expose their findings. It also documented their attempts at having Congress and other "trusted authorities" investigate the matter.

As far as my interest lay, the bottom line was that Steve Ganis was working for the House Banking Committee (HBC), the Congressional authority that was investigating the matter, and had been leading their investigation. However, the report that he produced was never published, even years after the investigation had concluded. It also said that Steve Ganis had left the HBC, whereabouts unknown.

I didn't think much of it at the time. However, a couple of months later I heard that someone else had been assigned take over Steve's position and I decided to look into it further. This time, I printed out a new copy of the report and printed out articles under the related stories. The first one in particular, Gray Money, drew me in like a moth to a flame. The article drew a very clear line between Bill Clinton and AIG with the Arkansas Development Finance Authority the middle man.

Putting the information provided, or alluded to in the articles, together, one could see that George Bush (Bush I as I like to call him) and Bill Clinton had been working together for some time. Basically, Clinton allowed Bush and the CIA to use Mena as the focal point for a CIA-sponsored drug smuggling operation and in return they would launder the money through Clinton's vehicle of choice. Furthermore, they would direct the federal investigators to turn a blind eye to Clinton's other endeavors which required money laundering.

As for Steve Ganis, it turns out that the events that precipitated the lawsuit were much ado about nothing, boilerplate disgruntled former employee who decided to sue instead of find another job.

Selig is just grandstanding

2009-02-13T10:54:00.002-05:00

I was recently reminded of an error in my thinking about something. According to this blog entry, steroids and other controlled substances which could be classified as "performance enhancing" have been banned from baseball since 1991.

In the entry, there is a link to ESPN's article about the history of steroids and baseball which I have read. Basically, it's right and I was wrong, baseball did have a policy against illegal use of controlled substances. However, what the author of the blog blatantly overlooked is two facts: first, Androstenedione wasn't considered a controlled substance in 1998 (McGwire bought his at GNC) and, secondly, that Tetrahydrogestrinone (a.k.a., THG or the Clear) wasn't listed as a controlled substance until after the close 2003 World Series (October 28th, to be precise).

Why am I saying this? Well, it's because you might have heard recently that Bud Selig is not only considering disciplining Alex Rodriguez for using steroids but expunging Barry Bonds' name from the record book.

Now, if for no other reason than to get it out of my system, I want to say that if Selig tries to excise Bonds' achievements from the record books, he'll go down as the Nero of baseball -- a man who oversaw a great empire and then acted in a manner that had no other purpose than to destroy it. Stripping Bonds of his records will shatter the league's tenuous relationship with the players association and bring an abrupt end to the golden age that the sport has enjoyed for the past 12+ years.

On top of that, Selig has no justifiable grounds for doing this. Like him or not, Barry Bonds hasn't done anything that MLB can warrant this kind of unprecendented punishment on. Was he one of the 104 who tested positive in November of 2003? It doesn't matter. The league's agreement with the players association was very clear about the fact that no one who tested positive could be punished by the league for doing so. And without any indisputable evidence that proves Bonds was using controlled substances before November 2003 (because there was no testing), the decision cannot withstand a legal challenge.

Finally, because the federal government's charges against Bonds have basically been reduced to perjury (the legal word for lying), Selig has to understand that he cannot discipline players for legal infractions. That is something that has to be collectively bargained with the players association who will NEVER agree to it.

Sadly, Selig's comments are nothing but grandstanding to curry favor with the government and certain fans. Unfortunately, they're just empty threats because he can't do anything that won't ultimately be undone.

Hey, Bud, if this is to be the swan song to your term in office, it's turning out a lot more like a cacophony. Way to go, stupid.

More cranial noise...

2008-11-12T18:00:00.002-05:00

Just some things that have been rattling around the inside of my skull...

Chuck Lorre Productions, which is responsible for both Two and a Half Men and the Big Bang Theory, makes not only the funniest shows on TV, but he's also got the best sense of humor I've seen since Doug Adams died and Robert Aspirin sobered up. The vanity cards at the end of those shows are priceless. Fortunately, all are available on the web: http://www.chucklorre.com/

Red Sox left fielder Jason Bay's full name is Jason Raymond Bay, which makes him Jay Ray Bay...

At some point soon I will be creating a group on Facebook called "I have more than 50 friends on Facebook and not 1 that I went to high school with"

While the show itself looks like crap, Jennifer Esposito from Samantha Who? is hot. Not too bad for a hockey player's daughter.

I've started a search for Kenny Ames

Just added some angel fish to the tank. I forgot why it is that I like cichlids so much, because they're both smarter and have more personality than live-bearers like platties and guppies.

If you are watching Survivor: Gabon, you cannot be rooting against Matty. He's an underdog with a target on his back, but he's a really likable guy who does not quit.

Love watching the general response to Obama's election as President. Right-wingers are screaming that this guy is the anti-Christ, here to institute a socialist government that will run this country to ruin, while the left-wingers are dancing in the streets, convinced that he will bring about the Utopian society where no one needs money and we're all free to love and do as we please.

I think both are going to be proven wrong. What he definitely does seem to be about is change. Yeah, I know, that was about as easy a read as you'll get, but I really think that the man's plan involves changing the way things are done in this country and I don't think that's an entirely bad idea. We do need someone to take a fresh look at the way this country operates because, quite frankly, the empire that the bureaucrats have built in Washington, DC stifles change.

Now, there's always the chance that I'm dead wrong about this and that Obama's plan is merely to be the socialist redistributor of wealth. If that is, in fact, the case. So what? The man was elected on the strength of a swing vote that was decidedly anti-Republican. All people need to remember is that we re-elect Congress every two years. If Obama turns into the right-wing's worst case scenario, then his party will lose its majority in Congress in the midterm elections and he'll be forced to compromise on things just like Clinton did. As I recall, the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency were some pretty good times.

Now, for a personal notice.

It's been 6 months since I gave my notice at Fidelity. And, for 6 months, I haven't publicly skewered the worthless, duplicitous pieces of shit responsible for making the working conditions there miserable. And, in a move that seems totally out of character for me, I don't believe that I will.

I'm sure that those of you who know me well are stunned about this as it is totally of character for me. And before you think I've been medicated or that I'm posting from the seclusion of a lightly padded room with no sharp objects nearby, just know this: living well is the best revenge.

I have a great job at a small, but growing, company where we focus on results, not the process. I am no longer at a company which will be laying off hundred, nay, thousands of employees over the next few months. I don't have to make sure that I kiss the right ass to keep my name off a list. So, for now, I'll keep them out of the limelight.

Except for you Dausch. Fuck you.

Easy on the"poor me"s

2008-10-31T12:00:00.008-04:00

First, I'm going to begin by saying congratulations to the Philadelphia Phillies, who defeated the Tampa Bay Rays 4 games to 1 in the World Series and are Major League Baseball's 2008 champions. They outplayed the Rays and outlasted the rain and proved that age and treachery do beat youth, innocence, and a bad haircut.

That said, don't count me among those who feel the slightest amount of pity for Philadelphia's "long-suffering" fans who had to endure a 25-year wait between championships, because I don't want to hear it.

If you take a look at the major-league sports franchises in the “big four” sports (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball), you’ll see that there are 114 teams spread out across 40 metropolitan areas within the United States (I'm omitting Canada for a reason). Those metropolitan areas would be: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, New Orleans, New York-New Jersey, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco Bay area, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Washington, DC.

Out of those 40 cities, 17 have won a championship in the last 10 years (this includes Philadelphia's World Series title this week). Here's how they break out:

Championship cities in the last 10 years:

Metro Area	Championships
Baltimore	1
Boston	6
Charlotte	1
Chicago	1
Dallas	1
Denver	2
Detroit	3
Indianapolis	1
Los Angeles	5
Miami	2
New York-New Jersey	5
Philadelphia	1
Phoenix	1
Pittsburgh	1
San Antonio	4
St. Louis	2
Tampa Bay	2

Of course, if we look back further, let's say the last 25 years, the list gets considerably longer. Now the cities where a championship was celebrated grows from 17 to 25 and now includes: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Green Bay, Minneapolis/St. Paul, San Francisco Bay area, Washington, DC.

Which means that the following cities have NOT won any sort of a championship in the last 25 years: Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Jacksonville, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle.

The problem with that list is that we have a lot of cities which are either new to the whole major league sports scene (Columbus, Memphis, OKC to name a few) or have only one team (or both). So, let's remove the cities that only one team calls home and those whose teams have been in existence for less than 20 years, we see list become a lot smaller. Buffalo, Cleveland, Milwaukee, New Orleans, San Diego, Seattle.

Hmm, that really draws a stark map of sporting futility, doesn't it.

Metro Area	Last Title	Mantle of Futility
Buffalo	1965	4 straight Super Bowl losses
Cleveland	1964	how many losing seasons since?
Milwaukee	1971
New Orleans	-	zero winning seasons in first 19 years
San Diego	-
Seattle	1979	only franchise to actually win a championship left town

Looking at it this way, it kind of makes that whole "haven't won a championships in 25 years" thing seem a little silly, doesn't it?

General update

2008-10-21T12:30:00.006-04:00

I've been ranting about politics for a while now so I thought that I'd use this time to talk about some other, non-political things.

I'm going to start by sharing an update on the status of my fantasy football team. We stink.

After 7 weeks, I've compiled a wretched 2-5 record and I'm averaging less than 110 points a week, which ain't all that good. A healthy part of the problem has been the status of the players I drafted. In general, I think that my strategy (focus on receivers who have lots of catches and rookie running backs) was sound, but that my execution could use serious improvement.

Anyway, here's the status of the guys I drafted:

Still with the squad:
Round 1: Braylon Edwards, WR, CLE
Round 3: Jason Witten, TE, DAL
Round 4: Wes Welker, WR, NWE
Round 5: Matt Forte, RB, CHI
Round 7: San Diego Defense
Round 8: Jonathan Stewart, RB, CAR
Round 11: Jake Delhomme, QB, CAR

Traded:
Round 2: T.J. Houshmandzadeh, WR, CIN (traded for Amani Toomer and Randy McMichael, both of whom have been subsequently cut. Ironically, Housh has been subsequently traded)
Round 9: Felix Jones, RB, DAL (traded with Jackson and Fasano for Lee Evans and Eli Manning)
Round 10: Vincent Jackson, WR, SDG
Round 13: Anthony Fasano, TE, MIA

Cut:
Round 6: Marc Bulger, QB, STL
Round 12: Davone Bess, WR, MIA
Round 14: Ahmad Bradshaw, RB, NYG
Round 15: Kevin Jones, RB, CHI
Round 16: Phil Dawson, K, CLE

I replaced Dawson with Gostkowski. I replaced Bulger with O'Sullivan and then cut him. I dropped Bess, Bradshaw, and Jones, and have worked through several WRs and RBs, including Steve Smith (from the Giants, not the Panthers), Reggie Brown, Koren Robinson, Duece McAllister, and Ricky Williams.

Now, what have I learned from all of this? Next time, I shouldn't simply go with WRs who rake in passes because situations can change and without proper research, it can blow up in your face. Had I known that the Bengals gutted their offensive line, I might have been able to avoid selecting Houshmanzadeh that high because a WR is only as good as the QB throwing to him and Palmer hasn't had the time in the pocket to make the throws.

Also, when it comes to any player whose job it is to catch the ball, see how often they get the ball thrown to them. Something I heard about a week before my draft was that while TO is Tony Romo's deep connection, his favorite receiver is still Jason Witten. That was all I needed to hear to bump Witten on my board.

What I also learned was that you should really think twice before picking a QB higher than the 8th round. Yeah, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady put up gaudy stats, but when your league gives you 1 point per 25 passing yards and 1 point per 10 receiving yards (plus a point per reception), receivers offer better value in the higher rounds.

And, lastly, never draft a defense/special teams unit before the 12th round. Unless you're going after the Chicago Bears, there isn't any significant difference between the #2 ranked defense and the #12 ranked defense so don't waste the draft pick.

I guess those are things to think about next year.

Another thing on my mind is music. I was digging through a stack of old backup CDs and I came across a CD with a bunch of MP3s on it. On of them, was a track from Tribe of Judah called "Left for Dead" that my buddy Joe hooked me up with. Tribe of Judah is Gary Cherone's post Van Halen project. The track isn't bad at all. Thanks again, Joe!

And of course, we have the Red Sox. The dirt dawgs made a season out of it by not only beating the Angels (who only posted the best record in baseball this year) in the Division round playoffs, but took the Rays to Game 7 of the ALCS after being down 3 games 1 and trailing by 7 runs going into the bottom of the 7th inning of game 5. Kudos to them because I really had moments this year when I doubted their ability to make the playoffs, let alone win a game or a series. They really surprised me and I'm very happy to have enjoyed the season as much as I did.

I'm also looking forward to seeing how things transpire this offseason. The Sox have some very hard decisions to make regarding two guys who've appeared in 5 American League Championship Serieses with the Sox, namely Tim Wakefield and Jason Varitek. They need to add depth to their bench as well as a quality right-handed bat to the bench. There's also the starting pitching which is very much in flux right now as well. It's going to be a very interesting November in Red Sox nation.

My last thought before I close this post is this: the most anticipated (at least, most talked about) album of the decade is actually due to be released next month. Yes, Guns N Roses' "Chinese Democracy" actually has a release date, November 25th. I'll wait until I hear something from it before I even consider buying it because the idea of GNR without Slash, Duff, or Matt is almost as bad as Boston without Brad Delp.

The Devil and Ms. MILF

2008-10-15T17:00:00.004-04:00

If the McCain-Palin ticket has anything going for it, it's that VP candidate is a total MILF. Aside from that, they got nothin'.

What's McCain's energy policy? Where's he stand on health care? How does he plan to address Iraq? What does he think needs to be done about the economy? I don't know because I haven't seen squat from his campaign. I've gotten something from the New Hampshire Republican Party urging me to vote for the party's "leadership team" (as if I'm that stupid) but not piece of literature from the presidential candidate's campaign.

Now, while I don't agree with all of his platform, I would be lying if I said that I didn't know where Barack Obama stood on an issue. This is evidenced by the sheer volume of literate which I have received in the mail from his campaign over the last 6 weeks.

The contrast is startling. And the irony of a Democrat sending out such a volume of paper products which will undoubtedly need to be disposed of is not lost on me.

However, what's disturbing is the message that I'm getting from all of this. If there's one thing that I've noticed about the Obama literature, it's that it has taken a decidedly negative turn. 6 weeks ago, it had a very pro-Obama, "here is my stance on the issues" tenor. Now, it's an incredibly anti-McCain, "this guy will hurt you" tone. I don't like that.

Yet, I've seen nothing from McCain which refutes any of these claims. Obama says McCain is for more of the same "failed policies" of the Bush administration. McCain says nothing. Obama says McCain wants to tax your health care benefits. McCain says nothing. Obama says McCain is going to keep pouring billions of dollars into fixing Iraq while the US crumbles. McCain says nothing. Obama says that McCain is going to harvest the kidney's of US school children and sell them at auction to international tycoons suffering from dialysis. McCain says nothing.

OK, I made that last one up. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that the only reason why any politician in this country doesn't defend himself against accusations, however outrageous, is because they're the true. That frightens me.

John McCain is (allegedly) running as the conservative in this race. Well, he's clearly not running as a fiscal conservative, that's for sure. In fact, he looks to be running on the same "more of the same" campaign that got George Bush I elected 20 years ago. This terrifies me.

The mere possibility that we could elect a candidate for president in this country that is so out of touch that he doesn't acknowledge (or refuses) that the country is screaming out its demand for a change in direction and approach at the highest level of government would drive me to drink myself to sleep at night if I were to dwell on it longer.

Why Columbus Day is more important than you think

2008-10-12T20:00:00.002-04:00

Columbus Day, typically believed to be October 12th and, like most other holidays in this country, has been reduced to merely being observed on the Nth Monday of the month. The original purpose of the holiday was to mark and celebrate the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and, by extension, western civilization.

However, we now know that Columbus didn't discover America. It was, in fact, right where the Irish, Scandinavians, and Portuguese would have told him it was, had he actually bothered to ask them.

So, why celebrate this day of discovery (or invasion, as certain groups are want to call it)? Simple, the day also marks a triumph in the ever-continuous battle between truth-seeking science and power-mongering religion.

Huh?

When Columbus' fleet set sail from Spain in 1492, he didn't just embark on a journey to extend Spain's imperial reach (although, that is how he sold the trip to the Spanish crown), he set forth on a journey of faith. Not faith in God, but faith in science. He set forth to prove that the pope and his minions were wrong and that the Earth was actually the sphere the ancient texts claimed it to be. And, upon landing in the West Indies, he shattered the lock and chain which the Roman Catholic church had used to bind the truth.

So, for that, Cristoforo, old boy, I salute you. Happy anniversary.

Don't insult my intelligence

2008-10-02T18:00:00.027-04:00

At some point in my life, I'm going to make the effort to walk up to a politician running for federal office and ask them to their face if they think I'm an idiot. When they they say "No" (because there's no way in hell that they'd tell a potential voter "yes, I assume all of you are mindless sheep"), I'm going to ask them why they insist on insulting my intelligence.

My point of issue today is an item of campaign literature I received from the Obama campaign. In short, it informed me that Mr. Obama has an energy plan which will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It also informed me that the plan advocated by Mr. McCain is just out to help "big oil".

Clearly, the point of this little bit of propaganda is to link McCain to the oil industry which we're supposed to assume is evil and out to cause us (and our bank accounts) harm. What Obama and his cronies aren't telling you is where all that oil that gets imported goes. They want you to assume that all of it, every last drop, goes into energy products, be it gasoline, home heating oil, or something else. However, the truth is that it isn't the case. The proof exists in one little word.

Plastic.

Plastics are an integral part of American life. Your computer is made with plastics, so are your TV, your car, your microwave, your shoes, your coat, and your bed. Have you purchased a soft drink recently? Chances are it was sold in a plastic container. Bought a candy bar? Packaged in plastic. So are CDs and DVDs, which are, oddly enough, also made out of plastic. Your iPod is made with plastic as well as your cell phone and your digital camera. In fact, plastic is so ubiquitous that you would have to go significantly out of your way NOT to purchase things which make use of it in some way, shape, or form.

However, what too many people seem blissfully ignorant of is that the companies that make those products don't just harvest the fruits of the PVC tree or raise herds of polypropylenes, plastics are a petroleum product and you make them with oil. And the reason we make all these things out of plastic is simple: it costs less to manufacture things with plastic than metal, wood, or glass and those things last longer. Damn, there's that whole free-market economy getting in the way again.

Getting back to our villan, "big oil", the truth is that the oil industry has been pushing for ways to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil for years and that Obama's party has lead the effort to block attempts at opening potential new sources for various political reasons.

Look, I'm all for exploring our options in terms of non-fossil fuel-based energy sources. I'm waiting for the day when Home Depot and Lowes start selling photovoltaic cells that you can mount on your roof. However, I steadfastly refuse to blindly advocate this "Green Everything" agenda because it has distinct limitations. For starters, it seeks to have everything be powered by electricity. I'm sorry, but internal combustion engines just do somethings better than electric motors, such as work without wires. Not to mention that I like to cook over flame, not electrical coils.

Of course, since this is politics, I'm also curious to know who stands to benefit from Obama's energy policy?. For those who do not know, I don't buy this "global warming" crap for a minute. (More on that in another blog entry.) So, when I hear all of the comments about needing to adopt a more environmentally friendly energy approach, it really makes me want to ask "who's going to gain from all this?". The knee-jerk reaction is that it will help save the planet. Sorry, but in America, altruistic movements (like saving the planet) do not gain this much traction without there being a chance for financial gain somewhere.

The sad fact is that, if you do the research into a lot of alternative energies, you see that most of the technologies being proposed are being developed by large companies that are not part of the oil industry. Translation: big companies are still going to benefit from this governmental policy, just not the ones who have been benefiting from previous governmental policies. And I'm sure if you followed the money, you could trace those companies to the candidates espousing a green agenda. They're out for green alright, just the old-fashioned kind, not the new kind.

On the whole, I think I'd have a lot more respect for Obama's campaign had they merely sent me a little card that reads "shut up and believe everything we say, you mindless sheep". At least I'd know where I stood.

Bahhh!

BMW drivers

2008-09-29T10:51:00.003-04:00

Not sure about the rest of you, but I've come to a conclusion about people who drive BMWs. On the whole, I find them to be a collection of pompous idiots who don't know their ass from their elbow when they're actually behind the wheel. These fuckheads are only driving the damn things because they're trying to show you how important they are because they drive a BMW. What makes things worse is that they expect you to move out of their way because they're important.

I think they should be shot in the head. Preferably right between the eyes and at point-blank range.

The Art of the Comic

2008-09-26T17:30:00.001-04:00

As I get older, I never cease to be amazed by the fact that comedians often have a better grasp on the realities of American politics than most. This year, I find myself resorting to the art of the comic again to describe the pending elections.

Put simply, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park) hit the nail on the head with their election episode from 4 years ago. For those who might not be familiar with it, the election came down to a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich. For the life of me, I cannot find a better analogy for the elections I need to make a choices on this autumn.

Starting with the Congressional representative election, the two main choices are Jeb Bradley (the Republican) and Carol Shea-Porter (the Democrat). I still have yet to figure out which one is the giant douche and which one is the turd sandwich, but that pretty much sums up my choices.

Bradley is a millionaire who claims to represent the working class. On top of this, he used to be the district's Congressional representative until he lost the seat to Shea-Porter two years ago in the massive Democratic sweep of Congress. Now, he's trying to win back the seat, running on a platform of "New Hampshire values." He's criticizing the Democrats for their attempts to obfuscate the pork in federal spending yet he attacked his opponent in the primary for being against any pork, especially every scrap that New Hampshire can garner. Great, just what we need, a guy who's against pork for anyone else, but out to get as much as he can for "his constituents". I don't know what he calls that, but I call it hypocrisy and that's not the kind of character I want in my elected officials.

Shea-Porter, on the other hand, is the incumbent trying to retain her seat. For those who don't recall, she ran a one-issue campaign 2 years ago and her "sole purpose" if elected was to remove the troops from Iraq. That was her campaign. Nothing about the economy, energy prices, health care, or anything else. Just "bring the troops home from Iraq". Well, it's been nearly two years since the election and last time I checked there are still US troops in Iraq. In fact, I believe the number of troops over there has actually increased. Great, she was sent to Washington to do one thing and she failed. On top of that, her voting record also shows that she voted right along with her fellow Democrats and their socialist agenda which features increased taxes and big government solutions which are destined to fail.

What incredible choices mainstream American politics have given me.

Fortunately, those aren't my only choices. There's another one. Bob Kingsbury is a Libertarian running for Congress. He's in favor of lowering taxes and reducing the size and role of government. He is against the Patriot Act and other attempts by the government to restrict individual freedoms in the same of "security" and believes that we need to foster the believe that the citizenry is responsible for its own actions.

Of course, I'm sure that many people will view Mr. Kingsbury as a "kook" and a "nut job" and, quite frankly, they might be right. However, I'd rather support a "looney" who acts on their convictions than someone deemed "normal" by the masses whose goal is to advance their own agenda under the guise of "the public good".

Idle thoughts from the moment

2008-09-25T17:30:00.000-04:00

Been a while since I blogged and I thought it was time. Here are some of the things going on at the moment.

The Red Sox clinched a playoff spot this week. This will be their 5th playoff appearance in the last 6 years. They also become only the second defending World Series Champion in the last 6 years to make the playoffs in the following season. The last one? The 2005 Boston Red Sox.

Patriots wide receiver Troy Brown announced his retirement today. Brown, an 8th round draft pick by the Pats in 1993, was with the team for 15 seasons and is the franchise's all-time leader in receptions and punt returns. He finishes his career with 3 Super Bowl rings, 2 AFC Championship rings, and a host of memories most players will never have. Brown is proof that being the biggest, strongest, or fastest won't garner as much success in the NFL as being smarter, working harder, and loving it more will.

Heard part of Jon Keller's segment this morning on WBZ. He blamed the US Government's inability to move beyond party bickering and petty squabbling on the fact that the country is run by the Me Generation, a narcissistic group of sanctimonious half-wits who claim to have uncompromising principles to serve the public interest while they seek to advance their own agendas. Keller's right. The lot of them can go to hell.

Given the situation in Washington, I'm somewhat happy that my brother's friend did not win the primary. Washington is a hive of liars and unscrupulous human scum. Neither would have been served well by the experience.

Aidan turns 4 in 18 days. Unbelievable how time flies. Pretty soon, I'm going to have to start wondering about homework and first grade.

Not sure how many of you live in New Hampshire, but if you do and follow NH school sports, check out the NHIAA community at www.mondopulse.com. Sign up and follow your favorite team.

I'm going to close out with an update on my fantasy football team. For those of you who don't remember, I drafted a pretty decent team. Since the draft, however, the team has gone downhill. I've benched my first round pick (Braylon Edwards), traded away my second round pick (Houshmandzadeh), and cut my starting QB (Bulger) as well as my 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th round picks. My starting QB is now a guy I picked up off waivers on a whim (O'Sullivan), offered a TE averaging nearly 13 points a week to 4 people, and I'm down to the point where I'm speculating that a retread on an injured team (Koren Robinson) can resuscitate my wide receivers.

The Democrats select their VP

2008-08-25T10:51:00.005-04:00

Well, Barack Obama and the Democrats have picked their VP candidate. In a surprise to no one with a brain, it was NOT Hillary Clinton. The actual candidate was Joe Biden, the senior senator from Delaware. Biden, who ran for President in 1988 and 2008, is considered a ~~moderate~~ centrist Democrat who will assist in improving the party's appeal to the political center.

One of the things that I appreciate about this selection is that Biden is listed as one of the least-affluent members of the senate. Not sure where he stands in the grand scheme of things, but he's not a man of ample means by any stretch. I like that. I think that it's time we started putting more of the proletariat into the White House and stopped having to select between members of bourgeoisie. The 2004 Presidential election, given the net worths of the 4 popular party candidates for president and vice president, seemed more like it should have been for the president of the country club, not the president of the country.

What I do not like about this choice is something of a trend in Democratic presidential candidates, specifically candidates running both for election to the White House and for election to their their current position. All that does is show that these guys don't care where they get in, that they just want to have a position of authority. When I see that happen, all it does is make me realize that Douglas Adams was right. Anyone capable of getting himself elected president should under no circumstances be allowed to take the job.

Fantasy Football draft

2008-08-18T11:14:00.004-04:00

Well, we had the big Fantasy Football draft this weekend and here's how my team shook out:

Round 1, 12th pick: Braylon Edwards, WR, CLE
Round 2, 13th pick: T.J. Houshmandzadeh, WR, CIN
Round 3, 36th pick: Jason Witten, TE, DAL
Round 4, 37th pick: Wes Welker, WR, NWE
Round 5, 60th pick: Matt Forte, RB, CHI
Round 6, 61st pick: Marc Bulger, QB, STL
Round 7, 84th pick: San Diego Defense
Round 8, 85th pick: Jonathan Stewart, RB, CAR
Round 9, 108th pick: Felix Jones, RB, DAL
Round 10, 109th pick: Vincent Jackson, WR, SDG
Round 11, 132nd pick: Jake Delhomme, QB, CAR
Round 12, 133rd pick: Davone Bess, WR, MIA
Round 13, 156th pick: Anthony Fasano, TE, MIA
Round 14, 157th pick: Ahmad Bradshaw, RB, NYG
Round 15, 180th pick: Kevin Jones, RB, CHI
Round 16, 181st pick: Phil Dawson, K, CLE

Now, fantasy football veterans would obviously have some questions about the reasoning behind this draft. Simple, in most fantasy football leagues, it's all about the running backs, because most leagues award 1 point per 20 or 25 yards receiving vs. 10 rushing yards and don't award points per reception. Not in my league, it's all about the receivers.

Why? Our league awards 1 point per reception and 1 point per 10 yards receiving. Therefore, a receiver who catches 110 balls for 1200 yards and 8 scores (278 points) is more valuable than a RB who rushes for 1000 yards, 10 TDs, and catches 40 passes for 350 yards, and a score (241 points). What makes Welker a huge steal is that he also will gain rushing yardage and he returns punts and kickoffs. If he returns so much as one kick for a score (which he can do), that's like free money.

As for the Chicago RB connection, that's easy. I anticipate them running the ball a lot this year as they still haven't figured out who their starting QB is (not that it matters because they can't pass protect worth a damn). Couple that with the fact that they don't have any WRs who can threaten with deep runs, so I see a lot of dump off passes coming their way.

We'll see how this works out. If it pans out like I hope it will, then I just screwed myself for next year's draft because everyone will follow the same strategy.

The 4th quarter

2008-08-15T12:17:00.003-04:00

With 122 down and 40 to go, the Red Sox find themselves entering the 4th quarter of the season.

Here's how it shapes up for them. Out of their remaining 40 games, they play 22 at home. Not too bad for a team that's won 73% of its home games this year.

Their opponents over their last 40 games are:

Toronto Blue Jays, 12 games, 6 at home, 6 in Toronto. Sox are 2-4 against the Jays this year.
Baltimore Orioles, 6 games, 3 at home, 3 in Baltimore. Sox are 7-5 against the O's this year.
New York Yankees, 6 games, 3 at home, 3 in New York. Sox are 6-6 against the Yankees this year.
Texas Rangers, 3 games in Texas. Sox are 7-0 against the Rangers this year.
Tampa Bay Rays, 6 games, 3 at home, 3 in Tampa. Sox are 6-6 against the Rays this year.
Cleveland Indians, 4 games at home. Sox are 2-0 against the Indians this year.

The good news for Boston is that their offense seems to have rediscovered itself recently. After the All-Star break, the bats sort of went on vacation. Then there was the small matter of the Manny Ramirez distraction, but now the team seems to have found it's groove but that might just be a result of the competition they were facing.

Interesting note about Toronto, the Red Sox will play the Jays on back-to-back weekend serieses twice over the remaining 7 weekends of the year. So, if you're a Sox fan, you'll know all about the Blue Jays come October.

Some information about oil

2008-08-13T17:30:00.001-04:00

I was doing some reading the other day and I came across some information that I found interesting. It was especially interesting given that this is a Presidential election year (in case you hadn't heard) and the subject of oil and, consequently, oil-derived prices, is in the news.

Did you know that as of July 2008...

...the United States produces just over 5M barrels of domestic crude oil per day. Of that 5M, Texas produces the most -- just under 1.1M barrels a day.

...much of the oil produced from Alaska (722K barrels/day) is sold internationally. Due to antiquated laws to protect the US shipping industry, foreign vessels are prohibited from delivering oil between US ports.

...the United States imports over 10M barrels of oil per day, of which 5.3M barrels come from OPEC countries and 2.1M barrels come from the Persian Gulf.

...the largest international supplier of foreign oil to the United States is Canada, which provides approximately 1.9M barrels per day.

...the United States consumes approximately 20.7M barrels of petroleum per day including 390 million gallons of motor fuel per day.

...the current proved fuel reserves for the US are 20,972M barrels -- approximately 1,000 days.

Here's my source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

1 year old

2008-07-30T09:05:00.003-04:00

Today is my daugther Shannon's first birthday! It amazes me that the little bundle that came into the world last summer is now walking and doing her best to talk and communicate. Even more interesting is how very much alike and unlike she and her older brother are.

Happy birthday, peanut. I love you!

Looks like I was wrong about ole Manny...

2008-07-29T17:30:00.002-04:00

Nothing makes you feel more like an asshole than defending one in good faith.

ESPN's Peter Gammons (a.k.a., the closest thing you will ever get to man who writes the gospel of baseball) raised a very interesting point about Manny in his blog entry from yesterday.

Wrote Gammons:

"Everyone in the clubhouse knows the names. Joba Chamberlain (twice), Felix Hernandez (twice), Edinson Volquez, Justin Verlander -- pitchers that Manny Ramirez didn't feel quite right to face"

For those of you who were not aware, that list reads like a who's who of MLB's "best pitching talent under age 25".

I had not been aware of the fact that Manny had sat them all out and, now that I am, I'm ashamed to have defended him.

Well, it's still only July 29th. There's a chance that the Sox could still work something out with either Philly (for Pat Burrell) or a multi-team deal which would land them Colorado's Matt Holliday. Here's to hoping!

It's Manny, move on...

2008-07-28T16:30:00.002-04:00

Manny Ramirez is many things. For starters, he's one of the most prolific hitters that baseball has ever seen. He's also got the personality and demeanor of a little kid. All of which is to say that Manny is an engima.

For those of you who didn't know, he's also playing in the last year of an 8-year, $160M contract he signed in the fall of 2000. During that time, he's helped the Red Sox win two World Championships. Their first two in over 80 years I'll add. The Red Sox hold two options which they can use to extend the contract by 1 or 2 years at $20M per season.

At the All-Star break, Manny was asked questions about his contract and said that, after the season, he'd like a chance to sit down and talk with the team's management, face to face, about their plans for him. Given the nature of his comments, it drew a sharp response from the team's management. All I can say is "shame on them for dealing with their player through the media".

Anyway, last week, Manny missed a game in Seattle with a sore knee. When the Red Sox arrived back in Boston, he missed the first game of the team's big series against the rival Yankees citing the same injury. The Boston media had a field day with this, going as far to say that Manny was faking the injury because he was unhappy. Now, Manny may be many things, but he doesn't fake injuries. He just isn't willing to play through them when he's unhappy.

To make matters worse, Manny made some comments that put him back in the media spotlight. For those of you who might have missed it, before Sunday's game, Manny was asked a question by a reporter from ESPNdeportes.com and his response was "If the Red Sox are a better team without Manny Ramirez, they should trade me; I will not object". Note that he didn't say "please trade me" nor did he say "I want out". He said that, if the team felt it were in the best interests of the team to trade him, then do so. He also said that he didn't think that they would trade him. Now, not surprisingly, people are blowing this thing out or proportion too. And the comments are all coming around to Manny claiming that he wants out, which isn't true.

The thing that bothers me is that the only reason this is getting the kind of bandwidth that it is, is because the Sox are struggling. If the Sox were in 1st place by 5 games (which they were a month and a half ago), this wouldn't be an issue. But with the Sox caught up in a three team race with the Yankees and Rays, it is.

Given all these things, I'd like to turn the calendar back a year and point something out. Last year, Manny suffered an oblique injury and missed about 5 weeks. He came back for the last week of the regular season and everyone wondered if he'd be ready for the playoffs. Heh.

Here are Manny's stats for the 14 playoff games from last year:

AB: 46
Plate Appearances: 63
H: 16
BB: 16
Times on Base: 32
K: 9
R: 14
1B: 10
2B: 2
3B: 0
HR: 4
Total Bases: 30
RBI: 16
.AVG: .348
.OBP: .508
.SLG: .652
OPS: 1.160

Put simply, those are monster numbers and show that Manny did everything in his power to help his team win.

But maybe more important than those numbers would be this, after the Red Sox lost game 4 of the ALCS last year, Manny was quoted in the locker room as saying "Hey, what's the worst that can happen? If we lose, we go home. It's not the end of the world or anything." Those words were a lightning rod for criticism as the Boston media jumped on Manny for his "devil may care" attitude. What was lost in the heat of the moment was that his words helped take the scrutiny off of every other person in the Red Sox clubhouse and allowed the team to play with abandon. Which they did, outscoring the Indians 30-5 over the last 3 games.

Given that the Red Sox, as a team, have batted below .250 since the All-Star game, maybe Manny's words will finally light a fire under the ass of a team which has been struggling for the last 6 weeks.

Power of people

2008-07-23T12:30:00.000-04:00

jad·ed (jā'dĭd)
adj.
1. Worn out; wearied
2. Dulled by surfeit; sated
3. Cynically or pretentiously callous

That's how dictionary.com defines the term. It's an adjective I use often to describe myself. This week, however, something happened which changed that, if only for a little while.

Sunday night, a guy who most of you do not know nor, sadly, will ever know, died of pancreatic cancer. He was 31 years old.

Joe, known widely as crakburn, was a husband, a retired Marine, and a die-hard Browns fan. He was also one of the moderators of the Cleveland Browns forum on Football's Future. It was in this capacity that made his impact.

Last summer, while I was busy welcoming a new baby into the world, Joe got the official word that the tumor that had been growing in his abdomen was, in fact, stage III pancreatic cancer. I'm not going to lie, when I found out, my first thought was to wonder if he had months left, or just weeks. Regardless, over the next few months, as his condition worsened, he kept following the Browns as diligently as ever. In fact, all but a few people knew that there was really anything wrong.

Three weeks ago, Joe went into a hospice so that he might receive the care he needed while he "got his affairs in order" (which is a polite way of saying "waited to die"). Anyway, the online community that exists on Football's Future wanted to do something to show Joe how much they cared. So, they started a Make a Wish drive for him. Led by a 15-year old from Kansas City (who's not even a Browns fan), the members contacted the Cleveland Browns and arranged to have Joe Thomas, crakburn's favorite player, come and visit him in the hospice.

For a group of people to come together from all over the country to help make something happen for a man that none of them had actually met in person, that has to be one of the most touching stories I have ever heard and speaks volumes about the quality of people.

Big move on the NFL front

2008-07-22T12:00:00.002-04:00

Well, well, well, things they are a changing in the NFL.

For those who might have missed it, the Miami Dolphins (my favorite football team) traded perennial Pro Bowl DE Jason Taylor to the Washington Redskins for two draft picks (a 2nd round pick in 2090 and a 6th round pick in 2010). This was a good move for both teams as it eliminated the distraction Taylor's presence (or lack thereof) would have caused at Miami's training camp, it gave the Dolphins more picks to use to rebuild, and it gave the Redskins an impact defensive player.

It also gave the Dolphins an additional $7M in 2008 salary cap space (bringing them to $21M under) which ought to be enough for the Dolphins to sign OT Vernon Carey to a very nice extension. They could also some of that money to extend several other players, but the question then becomes, who? Aside from Carey, there isn't one veteran player on this roster whose play deserves them receiving an extension. Not one. If that doesn't illustrate the negative impact that both Dave Wannstedt's and Nick Saban's tenures brought to this team, nothing will.

Not a great start

2008-07-19T10:00:00.004-04:00

Memo to Tito Francona:

Point 1: When you're coming out of the All-Star Break, most managers use the opportunity to re-align their pitching rotation in 1-2-3-4-5 order. Can you please explain why you've decided to come out of the gate 5-1-3-2-4 (Buchholz, Beckett, Wakefield, Lester, and Matsuzaka)?

Point 2: Since just about everyone is aware that Jed Lowrie is the shortstop of the future, a reasonable person might expect that you'd want to give him lots of experience against MLB pitchers. Platooning him with Alex Cora isn't, in my opinion, the way to go.

Point 3: Any further discussion about running out of pitchers at the All-Star game that fails to mention your gross mis-management of them is senseless noise. One of the worst legacies Joe Torre left us with was this "everyone plays" mentality in the All-Star game. Sorry, dude, but that was fine when it was an exhibition game, but it isn't any more. Unless the game's been decided already (and a scoreless game in the 4th hardly qualifies), pitchers should be expected to go 2 innings. And it's perfectly fine if some position players don't play.

Space, still the final frontier

2008-07-18T16:30:00.004-04:00

Just saw the footage of the Earth and moon that NASA released from the Deep Impact space probe.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/epoxi_transit.html

Unfortunately, it made me realize that space is still the final frontier.

It's been nearly 40 years since we went to the moon and it seems as though the collective thought process from the majority of the Terran governments is "well, that's far enough". To make matter worse, humans haven't set foot on the moon in over 30 years. I guess once we figured out how to put man-made metal objects in orbit around the planet, it seems as though those in charge thought it would be a better idea to find ways to put cameras and guns on them instead of find a way to put people in space on a more regular basis. But there I go again assuming that governments are designed to act in the best interests of the population, not the people who comprise the government...

Anyway, in case you haven't been following along, Sir Richard Branson's latest venture, Virgin Galactic, is starting to take shape.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Not only did they win the X PRIZE for being the first private team to build and fly a reusable spaceship, they're looking at creating a space tourism industry which will, hopefully, push the governments of the planet (specifically, the USA) into re-prioritizing the space program. I'm not sure how much Branson is going to be charging for a trip into sub-orbital space, but I'm interested in finding out. It's got to be less than the $20M that the Russians were charging.

Some idle thoughts...

2008-07-17T15:00:00.006-04:00

My brother Greg and my buddy Joe asked me about fantasy football this year and, since I've been posting about it recently, I thought I'd offer some more information about the concept. Fantasy football is a misnomer. It's probably better thought of as "rotisserie football" but since the majority of guys who play are under the age of 30, I guess the whole fantasy tag was part of the hook.

Anyway, the basic idea is that you assemble a team of NFL players and you get points based on the stats they produce. Sounds simple enough, right? So, you play in leagues where each week you go head to head against another player in the league. Whichever player's team scores the most points in a given week gets a win for that week. The teams with the most wins at the end of the fantasy football season (which usually occurs about week 12-13 of the NFL season) make the playoffs.

Now, the key about fantasy football is building your roster. This is the part most people struggle with and it's something that Bill Simmons (a.k.a., ESPN's Sports Guy) has discussed in the past.
Quite simply, each league varies and, while the concepts are usually the same, differences in implementations can make a huge difference.

Here's what I mean. Almost universally, leagues award 6 points for a passing, rushing, and receiving TD and 1 point for every 10 rushing yards, and 1 point per 25 passing yards. However, points for receiving yardage vary and some leagues award points per reception while others don't. (The league I'm in awards 1 point per reception and 1 point per 10 yards receiving.) Then there's the issue of defenses. In most leagues, you have a generic defense/special teams unit but there are some leagues where you can pick up individual defensive players too. Defenses score points based on take-aways, sacks, and points allowed.

Back when I made my first foray into fantasy football, I got screwed by a couple of things. The first was that our provider (Yahoo!) awarded kick (both punt and kickoff) return TDs to the individual who scored them, not to the unit as a whole. Since I had Chicago's defense/special teams unit that season (a.k.a., the year Devin Hester returned 5 kicks for scores), I got screwed. To make matters worse, I couldn't even add him to my roster because it wouldn't let us add defensive players. I also made the mistake of picking several Miami Dolphins higher than they should have been selected.

Bottom line, if you're going to play, learn the rules, learn the players' situations, and build your team to maximize your point output. For example, Frank Gore of the 49ers has run for just under 2800 yards over the past two years and, based on our league's scoring, has produced an average of 287.9 points a year. But you need to know the circumstances. In 2006, he produced 333 points (with Norv Turner as his offensive coordinator). Last year, he produced only 242 points. This year, his offensive coordinator is Mike "What do you mean, run the ball?" Martz. Is Gore someone you want to count on for production? I wouldn't.

Other things

Saw JibJab's latest political satire this morning. For those of you who forgot, these are the same guys who did the Bush-Kerry sign-along to "This Land is Your Land" 4 years ago. Anywhoo, this year they've done a number called "Time to do some campaigning" (which I think is done to Richard Thompson's "Time to Ring Some Changes") and manages to mock Bush, Cheney, Obama, McCain, both Clintons, and the whole political process. I love it. Here's the link to watch it:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin#/teaser/1191

Now, if we could just get some candidates that were worth electing...

---

The second-half of the baseball season kicks of tonight (although, this year, it's more like the last 40%) and it finds the Red Sox in first place in the AL East. The Sox have a record of 57-40 and look to be in pretty good shape to make another playoff run. Important bits of information to consider for the Sox:

they have 65 games remaining (34 at home, 31 on the road);
their remaining games are against Angels (6), Mariners (3), Yankees (9), A's (3), Royals (3), White Sox (7), Rangers (6), Blue Jays (12), Orioles (6), Rays (6), and Indians (4);
the pitching has been doing well, but they get their lineup monster, David Ortiz, back at the end of the month and that should help produce more runs.

The next 2 1/2 months ought to be exciting.

Fantasy Football moment

2008-07-16T15:20:00.004-04:00

Wa-hoo! Traded the #3 pick (and associated picks in the snake-style draft) for the #12 pick (and associated picks) in a 12-player league.

For those who aren't familiar with a snake-style draft, it works like this:

If you have the 1st pick in the first round, you have the last pick in the second round. You then have the 1st pick in the 3rd round and the last pick in the 4th round. If you have the second pick in the first round, you have the second-to-last pick in the second round. I could continue, but I think most people now get the idea.

Sure, it'll be forever before my turn to pick comes up again, but that ability to make back to back selections is huge.

Ha! Made it.

2008-07-16T09:27:00.002-04:00

Patience is a virtue. Sometimes, I surprise myself and demonstrate it. This time, I lucked out and got one of the two spots that opened up in the fantasy football league I played in two years ago. (I had to drop out last year because I just didn't have the time.)

So, the draft is August 16th at 1 PM ET. I have the 3rd overall pick. Hmmm, decisions, decisions...

The House that Josh closed

2008-07-15T08:41:00.007-04:00

Yankee Stadium. Hallowed ground of baseball legend and lore, home stadium to some of the greatest players to ever play the game, and shrine to everything that greed can get you is closing this fall. Due to be replaced by a newer, bigger park next spring. The park's nickname -- the House that Ruth built -- is homage to the man who put New York baseball on the collective map over 75 years ago. In tribute to it's final season, Major League Baseball awarded the 2008 All-Star Game to the Yankees.

At last night's home run derby, Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers gave it a new nickname -- the House that Josh closed. In case you didn't hear, Mr. Hamilton swatted 28 HRs in the first round of last night's expo, including one that almost cleared the roof facing, in center field.

As I'm not sold on the notion that the Yankees have the pitching to make it back to the playoffs for the 14th consecutive season, this achievement will be, in my mind, the final majestic memory of Yankee Stadium. And, thus, the moniker "the House that Josh closed".

Thoughts?

Rush from Manchester, NH on July 11th

2008-07-14T21:53:00.006-04:00

OK, so, here's my quick review of the Rush show from last Friday night.

This was the first concert I'd been to in years. In fact, I'd say it was at least 3 years since my last concert. It was the first time I'd see Rush since the Test For Echo tour in 1996. All in all, the show was very good. Unlike the guys from the Who, Rush is still clearly on top of their game and for a bunch of 55-year olds, they rocked the house. To which, let me say that the show was also pretty loud, but that could just due to me getting old too.

The set list, as best I can recall it, went like this:

Limelight
Digital Man
Ghost of a Chance
Mission
Freewill
The Main Monkey Business
The Larger Bowl
Red Barchetta
The Trees
Between The Wheels
Dreamline
Far Cry
Workin' Them Angels
Armor and Sword
Spindrift
The Way The Wind Blows
Subdivisions
Natural Science
Malignant Narcissism
Drum Solo
Hope
Spirit of Radio
Witch Hunt
Tom Sawyer
One Little Victory
2112
Passage to Bangkok
YYZ

I'll admit that I was a little disappointed in the song selection from Snakes & Arrows. Quite frankly, I could have done without Spindrift and The Way the Wind Blows and would have much rather heard Bravest Face and We Hold On in their places. But that's just me, I guess.

The other thing that surprised me was the almost complete lack of recognition of whole chunks of the band's history. They didn't play a song from their Rush, FBN, CoS, FtK, PoW, Presto, Counterparts, and TFE albums and played a grand total of 1 song (One Little Victory) from Vapor Trails. For those who don't follow Rush that closely, it means that they didn't play Working Man, Closer to the Heart, Big Money, or Ghost Rider. For me, it meant no Finding My Way, Animate, Earthshine, or Vapor Trails.

All in all, though, it was still a great show.

Some background on this blog

2008-07-11T12:36:00.007-04:00

A little background about this blog and myself in the process.

The title of the blog comes from the opening line of the song New World Man by Rush.

    "He's a rebel and a runner"

Of special note here is the fact that this is the also same song that provided my college yearbook quote, which was:

    "he's old enough to know what's right,
    and young enough not to choose it"

The significance being that I have a nasty habit of being a contrarian and the rebellious/anti-authority streak within me is well documented.

Well, enough about me. The other item of note (well, somewhat about me) is that I will be attending the Rush concert tonight at the Verizon Wireless Area in Manchester, NH. It's been a long time since I've seen Rush and I'm quite looking forward to it.

My First Post

2008-07-10T12:29:00.002-04:00

Well, after years of wondering whether it was worth it or not, I've finally started a blog.

Insert the sound clip of a fanfare here!

I'm not sure how often I'm going to be able to contribute here, but I'm going to make the effort.