"Mommy? Who were Republicans?"

Mommy: "Yes dear. Is this for your history class?"

"Why, they were the opposite of your grown-up friends Barack and Michelle, dear. Let's see if I can remember....I think that Republicans were also once known as 'The Party of No'....isn't that silly? Here, lets look at some pictures from your Dad's scrapbook. Wasn't he smart to take some pictures back then? And I have a couple of others to help us see the differences."

"A Party of No house....remember that big 'foreclosed' sign? But their new 'earth-friendly house' is right below it...."


































"The house where some of their leaders will stay. And where our leader lives."



















"A yard. Our back yard is the second one, honey."






















"Pets. See 'Bo' down there in the snow? Don't be frightened, dear....They can't scare us anymore."

















"Cars."


















"Heroines. Don't worry....that gun lady's waaaaay up in Alaska, sweetie. And she only shoots defenseless animals.... from up in an airplane."




















"Gun control."






















"Press conference."
















"Free time pursuits. Remember, only take the pills the doctor gives you, dear, and one at a time."
















"'Big Brain'..."














(Any decent 5th grader's photo goes here....)





Note: All images used are described as being "in the public domain", "for personal, non-commercial use", or are my own.

NFL Draft day comments re Browns

4:55pm - Cleveland Browns trade #5 pick to Jets, who then pick Mark Sanchez: 1) I think Sanchez will be an good or excellent NFL QB. (Hope he likes colder weather.) This is why I had the Browns considering him as my #2 probability (previous post.) 2) I also think Eric Mangini and the Browns 'cleaned up' (re their own, main objective), especially receiving S Abram Elam (who will start) and the Jets' #1 and #2 picks this year. (Don't know much about the other two Jets players also received, yet.) An excellent move; consistent with the #1 motive noted in previous posts here: Obtain additional picks to build the Browns. Also: A QB trade may happen for Cleveland, either this weekend or in the weeks ahead.

So who will the Browns take at #17? Part depends upon any additional trades (by the Browns) and, of course, what other teams before them do. However, look to see if either Clay Matthews III or Maualuga are available. M. Jenkins is still possible. Especially if they're trading Edwards, watch for J. Maclin (if available). In fact, if a WR the Browns like is still around, Edwards may likely be gone for something like a #2 and # 5. Aaron Maybin is also possible (if available.)
I'll guess right now that the more likely at the moment is a USC linebacker. We'll see....

5:50pm: Getting close to the Browns" #17 pick. Orakpo, Maybin, Jenkins now gone. Will San Diego go for Maualuga? If not, it may be hard for Cleve. to pass. Otherwise, I'll guess Clay Matthews. Beanie Wells and Jeremy Maclin are possibilities. Is Philadelphia interested in this pick?

6:05pm: Cleveland trades down to #19 with Tampa, who select QB Josh Freeman. Looks like Cleveland will still have a shot at either Maualuga or Matthews. Wells is going to be there, too. Maclin?

6:17pm: As guessed above, Philadelphia trades with Cleveland at #19. I'm hearing that Cleveland has received two #6's for the Tampa and Phila. moves. I would have hoped for slightly higher selections. Phila. takes Maclin. Detroit (#20) may go a USC linebacker. Cleveland will take the other one available (Matthews?). Wells? I think they need defensive help first. They may be able to get an RB a bit later.

6:28pm: Well. I (and others) talked about Mack a lot. I think it's too early for him, and I guess they didn't like the USC linebackers as much. Mack fills a need position, and he's smart. They must think they can get decent defenders at lower spots. Stay tuned.

6:59pm: Look like Green Bay has done the Cleveland draft that I (and others) were thinking about. Raji and Clay Matthews. But what do I know? A. Mack definitely help the Browns' O-line.
Notice that New England keeps trading down in this draft, too. And: The Edwards trade??

7:41pm: Cleveland looks like they now have three second round picks. Have to 'hit' on a couple of these. I think defenders are needed. Safeties Delmas and Chung are already gone. D. Butler and R. Maualgua are still there right now. I think it should be Maualuga, D. Butler, or maybe William Moore. B. Robiskie is still there. Edwards trade today still possible?

7:53pm: OK, Robiskie seems like a smart pick, especially since there seems to be little 'love' for Maualuga. Robiskie is supposed to be NFL-ready, and D. Stallworth's gonna be in jail at some point. As noted previously, the Browns feel that they can get some defenders later....I guess. But no draft upgrade to their pass rushers/linebackers (so far)? Must think they have some (Alex Hall?) help here and/or can get some later.

That's it for me. The Browns need some defenders with their remaining picks.

Update: Browns' NFL draft

4/24/09: My April 22, twenty-something paragraph post analyzing the Cleveland Browns' upcoming NFL draft contained plenty of disclaimers. For good reason. As anticipated, it looks like some key things have changed in the last two days. (I'm sure not the last of the changes and surprises.)

-- Braylon Edwards may not be traded, at least to the NY Giants. The teams are reported to be at an 'impasse'. We'll have to see about this one. It doesn't necessarily mean that Edwards won't be traded on, or after draft day. (Even still to the Giants.) But it may mean that this player trade isn't quite a "sure thing". That said, I'm not changing my previous analysis/guesses completely, though I have some big changes at pick #5, below: Cleveland may still be interested in drafting a receiver in the second round or later. But, if no lower first round pick is obtained (from Edwards) it increases the likelihood of Cleveland either: Drafting a defender at selection #5, trading the pick down a few for additional picks (and then still taking a defender), or picking Mark Sanchez (if available....Seattle?) and then perhaps trading him for additional picks. It also makes me think that Cleveland may have a lower first rounder available to them for a Brady Quinn trade. But as said in my previous post don't forget that Derek Anderson could be the one to go, probably for a second rounder. Watch this possibility especially if Detroit does not select Matthew Stafford.

I'm sure many Browns fans wouldn't really understand a scenario where Edwards perhaps stays, Quinn gets traded, Sanchez is drafted at #5 and kept; and Derek Anderson ends up the starting QB in 2009....

But otherwise (e.g., Sanchez drafted and not kept, Quinn traded), maybe Cleveland thinks Pat White or Brian Hoyer are legitimate future NFL QB possibilities.

-- DT BJ Raji seems to be getting more prominent mention (from a few sources) for Cleveland's no. 5 selection. And a recent name, DE Tyson Jackson is supposedly moving up fast and could be an option for KC at #3, or the Browns. (Though I haven't read much of anything about Cleveland being interested.) If Jackson goes to KC, it may increase chances that Aaron Curry and/or a top OT could be available for the Browns. But there's still much talk of KC making a trade, too.

-- A bit more speculation about Cleveland going for a center at some point (after pick #5) has surfaced. Alex Mack and Eric Wood are two names mentioned.

--I don't think Cleveland may like S Louis Delmas as much as I indicated. If they're looking for a safety in round 2, they may go for bigger William Moore or perhaps Patrick Chung, as guesses. Also, I'm no longer sure that Connor Barwin would be available beyond late round 1/early round 2. Otherwise, at this point too much depends on possible trades to be able to accurately project the Browns' second round picks and beyond.

Winding it up: I may regret this, but I'm going to update/change my probabilities (guesses) for the Browns pick at #5, understanding that only Coach Mangini and GM Kokinis might have an idea at this point. (Not sure they do either, at least until right before the first pick.) And also, that things depend upon what other teams do and who the Browns end up trading (and with whom):

1. Raji 2. Sanchez 3. Tyson Jackson 3a. Curry 5. M. Crabtree 6. Trade pick down 7. Orakpo


As said previously, no one really knows right now. We'll see what unfolds beginning tomorrow.

Rice OK'd torture: "If it works, it's OK" mindset

Link to 4/23/09 news article from A.P.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30367871

1. It's questionable at this point whether torture techniques (waterboarding, etc.) approved by the previous administration produced critically useful intelligence information. And, of course, we'll never really know if conventional methods of interrogation might have worked instead.

2. Like many other "end(s) justifies the means" approaches rampant throughout this country (questionable "ends" in this situation, as noted), it doesn't pass the "smell" test. (Among some other, "minor" legal ones....)
E.g., Slavery "worked" for the ruling class in agrarian America of the past. Does (did) that make that "means" morally and ethically correct? Even acceptable?

Ethnic cleansing has "worked" to achieve desired ends of countries and their rulers. That means that is "OK"?

At our own, personal level; similar form of reasoning/rationalization: "I'll be sure to graduate if I just cheat a little for this final exam, by obtaining secret, hard-to-get information (in advance) through unfair or illegal means...."

Where do we (begin to) draw the line?

How about: The U.S. does not torture. Period.

3. Investigate. Bring appropriate charges. Prosecute. So maybe it won't happen again:

"Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, isn't waiting. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a non-partisan investigation like the 9/11 Commission to look into what happened with the Bush administration's detainee policy. But if there isn't support for that notion, Leahy said he'd be happy to have his committee do the job.

Referencing the memos President Obama released, Leahy said "opinions were written totally contrary to the law."

"How did they convince themselves and have lawyers who would write twisted, twisted memos to convince themselves that they didn't have to follow the law?" Leahy asked. "We had a certain cadre within the White House or within the administration, they could automatically excuse themselves from following the law."

"They were trying to steal the Constitution of the United States," Leahy said on the floor of the Senate, comparing what he believes the Bush administration did with some of the bankers who have recently been accused of stealing funds. " They're trying to steal the credibility of the United States and trying to steal the honor and morality of the United States.""

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/yoo-defends-him.html

And, other than a complete "tool" of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (via George W. Bush), what was Condoleezza Rice??

(From several months ago:)

Sportsbreak: Analyzing the Browns' upcoming NFL draft

4/22/09: So many other football followers seem to be doing something like this....why not me? I've done some draft homework for you....

For anyone interested or Browns fans with (plenty of) time on their hands, some speculation/analysis follows about potential Cleveland first-day draft decisions. (The NFL draft begins this Saturday, 4/25/09. Cleveland currently has the #5 selection in the first round.)

Disclaimers: These are somewhat informed guesses. Most pre-draft analysis is just that, for the most part. (Especially with tight-lipped coaches.) I have no inside or individual source information. Only what I've read in print media, blogs, etc. (My main reads are non-subscriber to "The Orange and Brown Report",writers for various Cleveland-area newspapers, and "national" media (not including Mel Kiper).) My guesses below are my own, based upon reading these and other sources. (Note: I stopped reading for this piece this morning (4/22).)

At this point probably no one knows a whole lot except Eric Mangini and George Kokinis (GM). Obviously, I can be totally wrong, especially if trades occur and/or the top three or four teams in the draft do something unexpected. (A lot of draft prognosticators will be too.)

With a team like Cleveland -- rebuilding again -- the draft is critical. And it's where they've fallen down in the past. Here are some current thoughts/trends. This is an intriguing draft (for some), so watch out; it gets complicated:

-- Eric Mangini/George Kokinis very much want to acquire additional draft picks for the team. That's the #1 thing to know. However; logically, I don't think that they will make a trade unless they feel they are "getting enough" in return. That means that Braylon Edwards, Derek Anderson, and/or Brady Quinn could still be Browns after this weekend. But some would still be trade candidates through the summer.

-- As one scenario, Cleveland would like to trade down from its current #5 pick to acquire additional selections. But as many have pointed out, this is often easier said than done.

-- From reading educated guesses from various writers/bloggers, it appears that Braylon Edwards can be acquired for a first round pick and a third round pick, or some fairly minor variation of this (first rounder required, though). The "talk" is that he is the most likely Browns player to be traded, by the way. My scenarios below assume he is traded.

-- If attempted, it will be difficult (but not impossible) to obtain a first round pick (etc.) for Brady Quinn (by himself). Don't know what D. Anderson might fetch, but it may not matter as it seems that the new Browns regime may prefer him and his strong arm. Much of the draft speculation below unavoidably depends upon whether Cleveland trades a quarterback or not. It also depends upon who their trade partner might be. Most "experts" I've read put the likelihood that one QB will be traded on/around draft day at about 50-50.

-- Eric Mangini may well be doing a Bill Parcells/Bill Belechick imitation by intentionally keeping his players "unsettled" (not complacent), via a tight lid on information (and player/coach communication), and allowing media types, etc. to speculate with little information about possible trades, team draft directions, etc.


Taking the above as likely "givens" (as of today), here's some speculation on what might happen on day 1 of the draft for Cleveland:

1. Unless a pre-draft deal happens or is in place with a draft-day "trigger" (e.g., executed by certain, top-of-draft teams' selections), Cleveland will probably wait to do much involving a draft position move-down/trade until at least the first three picks are announced. What Detroit and Kansas City end up doing with their selections will be especially important. (But watch Seattle, too.) And, as a down-the-list, ancillary motive, I think KC (Scott Pioli) would like to do whatever he can to "screw" Eric Mangini. Including a trade with another team. (E.g., he knows the Browns would consider Eugene Monroe or Aaron Curry if they drop.)

1a: That said, I think these will probably be the first three selections in the draft: 1. Detroit: Matthew Stafford, QB (There's some speculation that the Lions could 'pass' on the top pick. Or, they may take Jason Smith, OT) 2. St.Louis: probably Jason Smith (but could be Eugene Monroe, OT) 3. Kansas City: probably Aaron Curry, LB (but could be one of the two top OT's, or a trade). I don't really have a "feel" at all for what Seattle might do. Mark Sanchez is a possibility.

2. If Cleveland can trade B. Edwards (for a first and third pick), they may have to go for Michael Crabtree with the fifth selection if he's still there. But if Curry is still there at #5, they will consider him. And don't be shocked if Cleveland still goes defense at #5 even with Edwards traded and Curry not available. But this greatly depends upon how much they like Brian Orakpo or B.J Raji, and only the "inner sanctum" really knows that right now. It also depends upon draft picks acquired in any possible Quinn/Anderson trade. But Cleveland could use the lower first round pick (Edwards trade) to select a decent WR like Darrius Heyward-Bey, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks (round 2?), or Brian Robiskie (round 2?), while selecting Curry, Orakpo, or Raji at #5. (WRs are fairly strong in this draft.) This specific angle also assumes that Cleveland thinks LBs Clay Matthews III, Rey Maualuga and others like Larry English will probably be gone before the bottom picks of the first round. (I.e., the first pick they'd probably get for Edwards.) Otherwise, pencil in Monroe (if available) or Crabtree at #5 and likely Matthews or a DB who "slips"with their late first round pick (acquired).

It seems risky to hope that Matthews/Maualuga (Larry English?), or a top DB will be available at, say, pick #29. But if Cleveland likes the players mentioned and other round 2-type defenders, they may take that chance. This draft appears to have few superstars, but decent depth.

3. If Quinn (or Anderson) is traded, it raises the possibility that Cleveland may select QB Mark Sanchez with the #5 pick if available; especially if they also obtain a later first round pick via an Edwards trade. (WR taken there.) Cleveland must obtain at least a top second rounder (or better) plus other selections for Quinn (or Anderson). (This may make Detroit, St. Louis, or Jacksonville possible QB trade partners. But, does Cleveland already have a lower first rounder on the table for Quinn, as some are guessing?) Some of this also depends upon whether the Browns feel that WVU's Pat White (or someone else) available later could become a legit NFL QB....And hey, JP Losman and Charlie Frye are still out there as free agents.

Cleveland could also possibly pick Sanchez, not trade one of its own QBs, and then still move Sanchez to a first round team a few places down who covets him.

4. If not accomplished in round 1, Cleveland will likely go defensive backfield early and perhaps often in the second round, unless they're able to take C Alex Mack with an early (perhaps 'extra') second round selection. (And an OT not taken in round 1.) Depending on how many picks they end up with here a RB is possible also, especially IF a quality back like Donald Brown is still available.

5. Through all of the above, remember that most "experts" project a poor-to-mediocre season in 2009 for the Browns. So unless they trade it away (bad move), Cleveland may well be selecting somewhere in the first round's top 10-14 of the 2010 draft. Rebuilding is usually a multi-year process. So again, watch for Cleveland to try and obtain as many picks (even some for next year) as possible.

That's enough. (More than....) Let's see how much of all this flies right out the window (and how quickly). It's speculation. Laying it on the line:

First round, #5 (if they stay there): Brian Orakpo (if available). A. Curry is possible, if still available. Eugene Monroe is intriguing if available, as Jason Smith also would be. But if Quinn is traded, Mark Sanchez becomes more possible. If they keep Sanchez at #5 or draft Monroe, they must firmly believe/hope that a quality receiver (or two) and defenders who can help quickly will be available at later picks. (Assuming they're sane....)

I think Cleveland's at least considering the "best player available" (at a need area) for this #5 selection. I'd currently rank the pick probabilities as: 1. Orakpo 2. Monroe 3. Sanchez 4. Raji 5. Crabtree 6. Curry. Since NO ONE "knows" right now, these guesses are based upon team needs and likelihoods of availability to the Browns. As can be seen, I don't think that Curry will be available for them (and he doesn't quite match their edge-rusher/LB need.) Crabtree appears to have attitude issues, and other decent receivers will be available.

In a trade-down-for-picks scenario (using Sanchez or possibly Crabtree, with Quinn/Anderson also traded separately), the Browns will try to take a top defensive player (e.g., Aaron Maybin, Malcolm Jenkins, Everette Brown, Clay Matthews III, Rey Maualuga) with the now-somewhat-lower first round pick acquired. (They'd have to work out the new QB 'hole' some other way.) In this scenario they'll also need at least one WR (Edwards also traded), and another need-oriented defender as soon they can draft them. (Although Alex Mack is another possibility.)

First round, later pick from an Edwards trade: A WR like Britt or Heyward-Bey, or possibly Brian Robiskie, unless Crabtree is taken/kept at #5. With Crabtree drafted, then Matthews or a promising DB who 'slips' (Vontae Davis, Darius Butler), or even S Louis Delmas will likely be taken here.

Second round picks (may wind up with at least three): DBs remain a priority. (Louis Delmas has been mentioned prominently, but others want him too. Patrick Chung is another possibility.) But if one of these is found in round 1, a defensive lineman/linebacker or two is especially needed IF the Browns don't take Orakpo/Raji. Connor Barwin is one name being mentioned. Larry English could still be available. Conversely, a second WR may be needed if defenders are mostly taken in round 1. (Nicks?) Also, a quality RB, if still available. Also DT Ron Brace, if teammate Raji is not taken in round 1. And perhaps Alex Mack early, if still around. (I think Pittsburgh will want him.) Pat White or another QB, if Sanchez not taken and Quinn/Anderson traded....?

Quite a mess. So, a wild guess for round 2, using three picks and Orakpo/Raji taken in Round 1: L. Delmas, H. Nicks, best DB available or Brace ( if Raji not taken). If Alex Mack is available, he's a possibility, as is a quality RB, if available.

Alternate round 2 scenario, if OT (Monroe) taken in Round 1: Larry English if available, or H. Nicks (or another round 2 WR) assuming Edwards is gone, but possibly Donald Brown, if available. Other round 2 picks: Connor Barwin/Alphonso Smith, R. Brace. (B. Robiskie or K. Britt are taken by Cleve. late in round 1. "Beanie" Wells is off the board before the Browns' picks in round 2.)

So we'll see how far off all of these guesses will be. Get ready for moves and some surprises from the Browns....

Tax "tea parties": She knows they don't float

Link to an excellent opinion column from Gail Collins of the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/opinion/18collins.html?_r=1&em

This writer always finds the common sense view about various issues. And with humor, too.

One of her best points here is reminding us about how it's often the states that receive the most federal dollar support (aid) that make the most anti-government "noise"; that seem to have the most anti-tax fervor. (E.g., Texas, Alaska)

As she further notes in her article (emphasis added) :

"Also, have you noticed how places that pride themselves on being superpatriotic seem to have the most people who want to abandon the country entirely and set up shop on their own?

“What a great crowd,” Perry twittered, referring to the protesters he addressed in Austin, some of whom were waving American flags and yelling “Secede!” "

(Note: That would be Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, another Republican whack-job to be kept as far away from Washington as possible.)

And if only Molly Ivans were still around to skewer these "deep thinkers" from her own "backyard", in her own, unique way.

Any 'old school' Yankee Stadium-Cleveland curse is OVER

Final score/recap: Indians crush Yankees 22-4

A climate issue that can be ameliorated

Crank down, or modify, that fireplace (for next winter).

Link to full report for some solutions, including additional links to more information: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2009/04/black-carbon-soot-cardon-dioxide-emissions-wood-stove-changeout-campaign-solar-stove.html?EXTKEY=I72RSHA

clipped from blogs.consumerreports.org Global efforts under way to reduce black-carbon emissions soot, or black carbon (the airborne residue from incompletely burned fossil or biomass fuels), is also being seen as another serious cause of airborne pollution and climate change. Recent studies estimate that black carbon is responsible for 18 percent of the global warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide The small black particles of soot land on glaciers and ice caps, soak up sunlight, and accelerate polar-ice-cap melting. Smoke from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires in the developing world are now the primary source of black soot. In the U.S., scrubbers and filters mandated by states and the federal government capture most of the on small-particulate emissions by diesel engines and coal-fired plants. But fireplaces and older wood stoves in the U.S. still emit large amounts of particulate matter that includes soot Solutions are at hand in both the industrialized and developing worlds.

Yankee$ SLAMMED in historic opener

The be$t team money can buy: How'd it "taste" today??

And did you enjoy your $2000+ tickets....??


Humiliation in Yankee $tadium opener (story link)




(Very nice new stadium, though. Should be; it co$t plenty.)

Assault weapons: Pandora's box opens wider

A link to today's Wall Street Journal story about the latest lunacy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984046627223159.html

("60 Minutes" also did a recent story about pretty much the same.)

Why would any civilian legitimately "need" an AK-47-style assault weapon, designed for combat? (Along with high-capacity magazine(s).) Period.

"Hunting??" For what.... T-Rex??


"Fear" and "greed" appear to be key drivers for the latest mania for owning such weapons, per the article. Wonderful human emotions they are. What other, even worse emotions might "get a grip" upon certain owners of these weapons one day? Here's just one recent example along with comment: "The American Way"

In the U.S., "Pandora's box" has been open for a long time regarding guns. When will we have the sense and courage to at least try to push the lid part-way closed? What's it going to take? How many more mass killings?

Other, civilized countries do not experience the degree of gun violence that the U.S. does. Most feature strict gun controls.

I don't "fear" much, except when it makes sense to. So if "fear" is driving fellow Americans to this option, perhaps here is a scenario that I may soon "fear": In a country comprised of many millions of people (some of whom are/will be "troubled"), are we already having neighborhood "arms races" going on? So now if one of my neighbors is having a bad time or worse, and something or someone "triggers" that person; the rest of us may may find ourselves under fire from a combat assault weapon....? And then possibly another armed amateur may try blasting away in response?

Still unlikely? Perhaps. Been reading the news much lately? Here's one summary for you: "The Guns of Spring"

Was it the best college hockey game?

Maybe yes, if you're a BU or Boston hockey fan....And a few of the earlier games in this year's Frozen Four tournament also had unbelievable finishes. A link to 4/12/09 Dan Shaughnessy Boston Globe article: "Legendary turnabout kept their dream afloat."

(AP sports story: Boston U beats Miami 4-3 in OT for 5th NCAA title)

For Miami U., some hope. According to a recent USA Today article: "Since 2005-06, Miami has the highest winning percentage in Division I (106-43-14). They have reached the NCAA tournament four consecutive years and have been ranked in the top ten nationally for 45 of the last 46 weeks."

U.S. companies warned about high-carbon investments

Link to blog article, Financial Times: http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/04/08/stern-warning-on-high-carbon-investments/

clipped from blogs.ft.com Stern warning on high-carbon investments April 8, 2009 5:01pm by Kate Mackenzie Energy companies in the US, already unhappy about the new administration’s dim view of offshore continental shelf drilling, will not be cheered by comments from Todd Stern. In an FT interview published today, the US chief climate negotiator warned that companies making carbon-intensive investments could live to regret it, as measures to reduce carbon emissions are introduced. “How good will the business judgment of companies that make high-carbon choices now look in five, 10, 20 years, when it becomes clear that heavily polluting infrastructure has become deadly and must be phased out before the end of its useful life?”

Re: Cyber-Spies Penetrate US Grid; Leave Soft-ware

Link to 4/7/09 Wall Street Journal article: "Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies"

This blog has obtained a secret, color electron microscope photograph of a particularly "sticky brood" (cyber term) of lurking, "off the shelf", spy-bot soft ware. A multifarious payload package apparently just waiting to be opened (on a certain date; religiously significant?), and massively distributed (something partially decoded about "baskets"); by....who KNOWS???

(Extremely high magnification)

"Cyber-peeps"

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/

Where's that American "can do" spirit right now??

Update, 4/8/09: I greatly appreciate Mr. Ted Anthony's brief comment in response to the following post, available for reading at the end. His point about attempting (as a journalist) to explain something, vs. assigning 'blame' is a good one. They are "different exercises". --- Mr. D. Tails

(My 4/6/09 post:)
From my reading of Mr. Ted Anthony's recent Associated Press 'Analysis' article (link)
"Analysis: Negotiating a minefield of bad news" . (Or, perhaps an alternate title; "Why are we killing each other?") :

The "analysis" primarily delves into the number and frequency of mass killings that are occurring in America, and possible causes. Mr. Anthony covers American culture for the Associated Press.

Included (in the article) from Binghamton, N.Y.'s Press & Sun Bulletin newspaper was this item, which REALLY bothered me:

"The Binghamton newspaper, the Press & Sun Bulletin, seemed to acknowledge the resignation in a glum editorial Saturday that wondered if it was simply, sadly, and inevitably Binghamton's turn to give up a few of its people to the juggernaut.

"It is our turn to grieve and to rally in support of those whose lives have been shattered," the newspaper said. "And it's our turn to hug those in our own families and wonder how a quiet, rainy Friday in a peaceful place became the setting for such a nightmare.""

It's our "turn"....?!? But as terrible as that is, I'm forced to agree about a couple of aspects.... but only these: It's difficult to head off or stop a determined human being, bent upon killing others, who is armed and has some type of plan. Also, viewed from a probability and statistics perspective, if your country has millions and millions of people (of all sorts), lots of available guns, and little effective control of deadly weapons....(Please refer to my previous posts, starting here.)

Reading further in Mr. Anthony's commentary/analysis story, I get the distinct impression that he's also(?) asserting that there's not much anyone can really do (about such mass shootings), and that modern American society is much to blame. ("This is not an era of good feeling in the United States" (e.g., the bad economy, terrorism, Iraq, etc.), and "People are tense.") And, above all, that: "....we seem powerless to stop it all...."

I strongly dispute assertions of utter "inevitability" and powerlessness. To begin with, that sure is the ol' "can do" spirit that helped make this country great (once): Just throw up our hands and consign all(?) past and future (mass) killings with guns to "inevitability".... There most definitely are things we can try to do, starting as individuals, to at least reduce the numbers and to increase our own chances of surviving. Here are just two: 1) Take seriously any threats or 'talk' from friends, co-workers, or relatives, seeming to indicate that they may be taking or planning such actions. Too often, someone close to an eventual killer was seeing signs of trouble, but failed to act. Err on the side of caution: Report it to police, clergy and/or try to get professional help to them. 2) Perhaps learn some of the following tactics, in case the worst happens to you: http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School-or-Workplace-Shooting

Though he may in part be referring to what the primary subject of his specific article is (going to be), I still can't really fathom the beginning sentences of the following from Mr. Anthony (emphasized):

"Put aside for a moment the debate over guns. This isn't about policy. It's about asking the urgent question: What is happening in the American psyche that prevents people from defusing their own anguish and rage before they end the lives of others? Why are we killing each other?"

This AP writer himself starts off his piece by going through a fairly lengthy list of past, multiple killings in the U.S. And then: "More than 50 people dead in the past month in American mass shootings and their aftermaths." So, per Mr. Anthony (and everyone else except the N.R.A.) we clearly have a crisis in this country with (mass) killings with guns, but we're going to "put aside" a debate about guns? "And it isn't at least in part, about policy? How can any piece labeled 'analysis' of the issue totally omit these.....? That's one way to guarantee an assertion that we're all "powerless".

Once again (previous posts): Might not enacting/enforcing the following policies (laws) at least help the U.S. regain some control? Other "civilized" countries have not exhibited the awful degree of gun violence that ours has. Most feature serious controls: "Close the gun show loophole, ban military–style assault weapons, and limit the bulk sales of guns that feed illegal gun trafficking not only to Mexico, but from one state to another here at home..... Weak gun laws (in the U.S.) lead to easy access to dangerous weapons."

Here's a link to CBS's Katie Couric, who asks for additional constructive (and necessary) action. (After the dumb-ass commercial.) :


Watch CBS Videos Online

Sounds good to me, CT A.G.!

Yeah!! Rate THIS....

Full press release: http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=3673&Q=438034

Now let's hear the vested interests howl about why this reasonable request somehow "won't fly".....

clipped from www.ct.gov Connecticut Attorney General's Office Press Release Attorney General Questions Fed Program That Steers Up To $400 Million To Big Three Raters, Asks Fed To Reconsider April 6, 2009 Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced he is investigating why a Federal Reserve bailout program unfairly steers up to $400 million to the Big Three credit rating agencies who helped create the economic meltdown by overrating risky securities. The attorney general also wrote Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking him to revise the program to stop giving the three agencies an advantage and assure that their seven smaller competitors can compete for the work. Blumenthal said that the program undermines recent federal legislation explicitly aimed at encouraging competition in the credit rating business by breaking the Big Three's longstanding stranglehold on the market.

13 slaughtered in N.Y. state - How many more to die?

(Please also see one of several previous posts here.)

So the real "March Madness" 'barrels' right on into April.
(Update, 4/4/09: And so it goes. On and on. (link) 3 officers killed in Pa. shooting )

Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign (to Prevent Gun Violence) says it loud and clear in this excerpt from her org.'s 4/2/09 e-mail message. (I.e., from two days ago.) :

"If there is one more mass shooting in this country, I am going to scream.

Last month, in less than three weeks, we witnessed the deaths of 22 people in mass shootings — in North Carolina, Alabama and California. This is truly March Madness!

If tainted pistachios, peanut butter, or spinach had killed these people, Congress would have jumped in with investigations, re-calls, and insisted that these foods be taken off the shelves in grocery stores.

And yet, Congress has done nothing — has said nothing — in response to these killing sprees...."

Instead, we in the U.S. seem to have "geniuses" like this guy (below) helping to "make the rules":

One more time now: Let's see....If you've got millions and millions of people (all sorts), LOTS of available guns, and little effective control......DUH.

"Close the gun show loophole, ban military–style assault weapons, and limit the bulk sales of guns that feed illegal gun trafficking not only to Mexico, but from one state to another here at home..... Weak gun laws (in the U.S.) lead to easy access to dangerous weapons."

Red light cameras in CT - Just do it

"In 2007, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners." --Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

(Links to additional info. included below.)

I'm far from alone: Every day that I'm out driving -- usually in the suburbs -- I witness at least one vehicle race through a red light, or not stop at a stop sign. It's usually more like several times per trip. (Yes; sometimes they're on the cell phone, too. Yakkin' about nothing.)

Just one example, but I've been driving for 35 years. Perhaps I'm lucky but only one accident so far. Yep: An idiot in an SUV ran a red light (some seconds after it turned red) and "T-boned" me as I entered a busy, Hartford intersection (with the green light). Spun my Toyota Camry around one-and-a-half times (a '540'). (BTW: That Camry "gave as good as it got". Drove it home.)

It's really tiresome to always remain vigilant for scofflaws, rampant throughout Connecticut. (And all of the neighboring states, too.) These yo-yos don't stop because they're rarely caught. They can get away with it and the 'geniuses' know it. To some it's almost a game, or even some kind of bizarre 'statement'. ("I'm a complete idiot", is the message that most others pick up....)

The arguments that enforcement cameras are too near to "Big Brother"(government), are "unconstitutional"; or "aren't necessary" don't really seem to hold very well in today's traffic-clogged, millions-of-drivers world. Not the one that I drive in every day. Significant numbers of motorists "out for themselves", acting only for themselves is a big step on the way to roadway anarchy. With so many big, fast vehicles, you just can't have that.

Here is a link to an excellent "Q&A"about red light cameras from the influential Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). I'm also copying one of their findings here:

"The large majority of the US public supports red light cameras. A 2000 Institute survey in ten cities — five with cameras and five without — reported that more than 75 percent of drivers supported camera enforcement.²⁰ A 2002 nationwide survey sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 75 percent of drivers favored the use of red light cameras.²¹"

Yes, I agree that cities/towns should do what they can to time and synchronize their existing traffic signals. But my experience is that red-light running still occurs with frequency even after that has been done.

A link follows to an editorial today at courant.com (Hartford Courant). If the state can't yet agree about speeding enforcement cameras, lets at least start "down the road" to improved safety and enforcement with deployment of red light/stop sign cameras at key intersections, as they've started to do in New Haven.

Though few seem to care anymore: By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules....

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-traffic-cameras-needed.art.artapr01,0,4838409.story