Climate science, political hay for the asses in DC

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

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...

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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!

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?

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?

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

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*

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

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

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

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...

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.