in the fine health and fitness section of the NY Times.
They found that women who increased physical activities like brisk walking and bicycling by 30 minutes a day during the 16-year period maintained their weight and even lost a few pounds, but those whose exercise was slow walking did not lose any weight.
Women who decreased their bicycling time from more than 15 minutes a day to less than 15 minutes gained about four-and-a-half pounds on average.
“This is not suggesting that if you bicycle for five minutes you will immediately go back to the weight you were when you were 18,” said Anne C. Lusk, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health who was an author of the paper. “If that were true, bicycle sales would go through the roof.
Full Disclosure: I have never owned or desired to own a gun.
The fact that the court decision was 5-4, when it should have been 9-0 is scary. The second amendment is plain.
Here's a little piece on SC Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is simply a leftist cypher.
It is worth noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the dissent penned by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, which explained that they "can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." Compare that to Justice Sotomayor's claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, asked if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions." Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is."
Not a fundamental right? Good heavens. And it's worth noting that the majority decision was quite clear that while gun ownership is a right, it's not an unlmited right -
Here's a common sense editorial in the Washington Post on the decision.
We hope not. Monday's ruling opens the door wide to an inevitable series of legal challenges that will tempt judges to substitute their judgments about gun control for that of legislators. They should act with proper restraint and respect for the limits of the judicial role.
The joke is on the rest of us. who does he think he is, Ronald Reagan?
Here's an interesting posting on the Catholic Key Blog, which is published by staff members of the Diocese of Kansas City -
... the Missouri Legislature voted overwhelmingly to place a proposition on the State ballot which would reject the insurance mandates passed under the federal healthcare reform bill. The bishops of Missouri have issued a joint statement explaining their neutral stance on the measure and encouraging voters to “exercise their best prudential judgment as they vote on this issue in August.”
Here is the full statement by the Bishops, which makes eminent good sense to me -
Joint Statement Concerning Proposition C Addressing the
Federal Healthcare Insurance Mandate
On August 3, 2010, Missouri voters will be the first in the nation to express their opinion about a provision in the new federal healthcare reform law that requires individuals to purchase healthcare insurance or pay a penalty. As passed by the Missouri General Assembly, the statute would state in part that: “no law or rule shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” On the ballot the proposal will be known as Proposition C.
The Catholic Church in the United States has actively provided health care through its various agencies for the rich and poor alike since the early days of this great nation, and has consistently advocated for access to health care for all citizens and immigrants. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), however, opposed the federal healthcare reform bill in the form passed by Congress, because of its failure to honor existing restrictions on federal funding of abortion and failure to assure protection of the conscience rights of healthcare providers and individuals.
We believe Catholics can differ on whether a federal healthcare insurance mandate is an appropriate means to ensure access to health care for all. We think that the insurance mandate in the new law is flawed, because it fails to respect the right of conscience of individuals to refuse to purchase insurance, if that insurance covers abortion or other unethical medical practices. From that standpoint, we oppose the federal insurance mandate in its current form.
We recognize, however, that Proposition C will not bar federal funding of abortions or address the shortcomings in President Obama’s Executive Order. If the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate is upheld in court, Proposition C will have no lasting legal effect, and Missouri citizens will be required to purchase healthcare insurance. For this reason, we are taking a position of neutrality on Proposition C.
In order to address the pro-life and conscience flaws in the federal healthcare law, additional Congressional action is needed. New federal legislation, H.R. 5111, has recently been filed in Washington to prohibit federal support or funding of abortion. We call on all Missouri Catholics to contact their Congressperson and U.S. Senators and urge support for H.R. 5111.
Some Catholics may view Proposition C as the best means to address the pro-life and conscience concerns in the federal healthcare reform law while other Catholics may conclude the only effective remedy is Congressional action to amend the federal law. We encourage Missouri Catholics to prayerfully consider Proposition C, follow a properly formed conscience, and exercise their best prudential judgment as they vote on this issue in August.
Michael Barone -
...there seems to be a more fundamental problem here. The Obama Democrats didn’t set out to produce an unpopular stimulus package, an unpopular health-care bill, and an unpopular cap-and-trade scheme.
They thought these initiatives would be popular. In their view, history is a story of progress from small government to big government, and that, as historians of the New Deal wrote, progress is especially welcome in times of economic distress.
The massive unpopularity of the Obama Democrats’ programs suggests that view of history is defective. Let me propose another, starting with the Founding Fathers.
The Founders believed there was a tension between representative government and the right to life, liberty, and property. So they wrote the Fifth Amendment to ensure that no citizen was deprived of those rights without due process of law.
... we still live in an America like the America of the Founders and unlike the America of the progressives and the New Dealers, in which a majority of citizens are or have every prospect of becoming property owners. And a nation of property owners is less willing to plunder the property of others in search of some promised gain than a nation in which most people don’t and will never own significant property.
So when Susan Roesgen, then of CNN, upbraided a tea-party protester in 2009 by reminding him that he was getting a $400 tax rebate thanks to the Democrats’ stimulus package, she was met with utter dismissal. You don’t sell out your property rights for a mere $400.
Bullseye ... hit the link and read the whole thing.
Or they were. Gen. McChrystal is a liberal who voted for President Obama and banned Fox News from his headquarters TV. That may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone. They'll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The managers of BP were unable to vote for Mr. Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister, duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their "Beyond Petroleum" marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord John Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of "cap-and-trade." BP was the Democrats' favorite oil company. It was to Mr. Obama what TotalFinaElf was to Saddam Hussein.
And you have to appreciate this - "Cohen" is Richard Cohen, the Washington Post liberal columnist.
To return to Mr. Cohen's question: "Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?" Well, he's a guy who was wafted ever upward from the Harvard Law Review to the state legislature to the U.S. Senate without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. "Who is this guy?" Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-40s with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. "What are his core beliefs?" It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It's the "nothing else" that the likes of Mr. Cohen are belatedly noticing.
UPDATE: Here's an understatement
“I’ve said all along,” Girardi said. “This organization has been very fortunate to have a guy like Mo.”
last night I turned on the tube around 11:30, just to confirm the Yankees had lost to the Dodger,s who they were playing on the west coast. I knew from the radio while chauffeuring boys around earlier, that they'd trailed 0-5, and then 2-6.
instead it's 3-6 in the top of ninth and Yanks have men on base with one out.
Here's "the rest of the story."
What's not mentioned is that two L.A. players were tossed out in the ninth and tenth innings, arguing ball and strike calls ...
I'm not taking a poll, just posting varous results.
Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say smoking should not be outlawed ...
Amazing. How do people like this get into Congress? He must be from a totally "safe" Democratic district.
An exactly to the point editorial over the weekend. Well worth hitting the link and reading the whole thing.
For going on three years, the developed world's economic policy has been dominated by the revival of the old idea that vast amounts of public spending could prevent deflation, cure a recession, and ignite a new era of government-led prosperity. It hasn't turned out that way.
Now the political and fiscal bills are coming due even as the U.S. and European economies are merely muddling along. The Europeans have had enough and want to swear off the sauce, while the Obama Administration wants to keep running a bar tab.
Like many bad ideas, the current Keynesian revival began under George W. Bush. Larry Summers, then a private economist, told Congress that a "timely, targeted and temporary" spending program of $150 billion was urgently needed to boost consumer "demand." Democrats who had retaken Congress adopted the idea—they love an excuse to spend—and the politically tapped-out Mr. Bush went along with $168 billion in spending and one-time tax rebates.
The cash did produce a statistical blip in GDP growth in mid-2008, but it didn't stop the financial panic and second phase of recession. So enter Stimulus II, with Mr. Summers again leading the intellectual charge, this time as President Obama's adviser and this time suggesting upwards of $500 billion. When Congress was done two months later, in February 2009, the amount was $862 billion. A pair of White House economists famously promised that this spending would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.
Seventeen months later, and despite historically easy monetary policy for that entire period, the jobless rate is still 9.7%. Yesterday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis once again reduced the GDP estimate for first quarter growth, this time to 2.7%, while economic indicators in the second quarter have been mediocre. ...
What the world has now reached instead is a Keynesian dead end. We are told to let Congress continue to spend and borrow until the precise moment when Mr. Summers and Mark Zandi and the other architects of our current policy say it is time to raise taxes to reduce the huge deficits and debt that their spending has produced. Meanwhile, individuals and businesses are supposed to be unaffected by the prospect of future tax increases, higher interest rates, and more government control over nearly every area of the economy. Even the CEOs of the Business Roundtable now see the damage this is doing.
Five officials and they couldn't decide if it was a goal. TV instant replay showed ball over the line.
Germany went up on goals by Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski before England's Matthew Upson made it 2-1 in the 37th minute.
Lampard's non-goal came a minute later. After the ball landed across the line, it spun back into the arms of Germany goalkeeper Manuel Neuer. Capello initially celebrated what he thought was an equalizer by clenching his fists and shaking his arms. But his face changed when he realized the goal had not been given.
"We heard that the ball was behind the line, that we were fortunate," Mueller said of Lampard's shot. "Before the last two goals, the game hung in the balance, England was putting on the pressure."
The 20-year-old forward finished two quick German counterattacks within 3 minutes to sink England's hopes of beating Germany at the World Cup for the first time since that '66 final.
Jesuit Daniel Berrigan (Full disclosure: I know him a bit; was arrested with him a few times - and how's that for name-dropping!) turned 89 back in May. When he was interviewed on his birthday, and asked about his life, he said "Well, it hasn't been boring."
I saw him at the Pax Christi stations o the Cross in NYC this past Good Friday, and he looked frail.
But here is the quote, which was in the weekly email of Peace and Life Connections:
Reflections(Amherst, Mass.), vol. 2, no. 4 (Fall 1979), 1-2.“I come to the abortion question by way of a long, long experience with the military and the mainline violence of the culture, expressed in war . . . So I go from the Pentagon and being arrested there, to the cancer hospital, and then I think of abortion clinics, and I see an "interlocking directorate" of death that binds the whole culture. That is, an unspoken agreement that we will solve our problems by killing people in various ways; a declaration that certain people are expendable, outside the pale.”
Stunning. BP's Horrible Safety Record
- and then there's this from ABC news - lots more details of malfeasance, which cost lives ...
In the last five years, investigators found, BP has admitted to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud. BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution.
Hit the second link for the whole story.
a good question from Estrich
My radiologist clients would also like the answer to that.
In an era of double-digit unemployment, it's hard to feel sorry for
people making six-figure incomes. On the other hand, many people who do work
of lesser value -- that required much less education -- make far more.
I was looking at a hospital bill of my own (from when I collapsed
on a street corner in New York City), and frankly, I was pretty horrified to
discover that the doctor who read my brain scan and concluded that, thank
God, there was no mass was paid less than the hairdresser who trims my hair.
Don't get me wrong: I like my hairdresser and value his work. But my life
doesn't depend on it.
And the doctor got more from my insurance company than he or she
would have received from Medicare. I have private insurance. Doctors get
paid, on average, 22 percent less from Medicare than they do from private
carriers. And they're prohibited by law from billing you the difference.
Obviously, we need to do something -- actually, many things -- to
rein in the skyrocketing costs of health care. As more of us get older and
the number of uninsured decreases, those costs are only going to increase.
But simply paying doctors less to do their jobs is not the answer.
Monsignor Quinn, who died in 1940 at age 52, championed racial equality at a time when discrimination against blacks was ubiquitous in America, even inside the Catholic Church. In the Depression-era heyday of the anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist radio broadcasts of the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin, Monsignor Quinn encountered sharp resistance from some fellow priests when he proposed ministering to Brooklyn’s growing population of blacks, many of them fleeing the Jim Crow South or migrating from the poor Caribbean countries.
Monsignor Quinn established the first church for black Catholics in Brooklyn, St. Peter Claver, which still exists and counts among graduates of its parochial school the singer and rights activist Lena Horne.
In 1928, he established the diocese’s first orphanage for black children, in a converted farmhouse in Wading River, on Long Island, which was then part of the diocese.
The orphanage was destroyed that summer in an arson fire, attributed at the time to the Ku Klux Klan, which was active in eastern Long Island and had openly opposed the building of the orphanage. After being rebuilt, the orphanage was set on fire a second time that same year.
But Monsignor Quinn rebuilt it a second time, this time in concrete and brick, according to a 1929 article in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle with the headline: “New Fireproof Orphanage Will Defy Incendiary.”
Here's Msgr. Quinn's NY Timess 1940 obituary.
You can't make this stuff up. Don't you feel so relieved that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the architects of U.S. financial reform?
A commentary, co-written by Gore.
There are several well understood advantages inherent in capitalism that make it superior to any other system for organizing economic activity. It has proven to be far more efficient in the allocation of resources and the matching of supply with demand, far more effective at wealth creation, and far more conducive to high levels of freedom and political self-governance. At the most basic level, however, capitalism has become the world's economic ideology of choice primarily because it demonstrably unlocks a higher fraction of the human potential ...
... we (and others) have called for a more long-term and responsible form of capitalism—what we call "sustainable capitalism." Sustainable capitalism seeks to maximize long-term value creation. It explicitly integrates environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into strategy, the measurement of outputs, and the assessment of both risks and opportunities. Sustainable capitalism challenges us to generate financial return in a long-term and responsible manner.
For example, in the asset-management industry, we are strong proponents of multiyear rolling performance fees in order to incent investors to manage assets with a long-term perspective. By contrast, if asset owners continue to review and reward their asset managers on a quarterly or annual basis, they should not be surprised to find their investment managers attempting to optimize returns within this time frame—frequently at the expense of long-term value. Unfortunately, this is all too common a practice for asset owners—even for pension funds, whose trustees are obligated to match the long-term performance of their assets to the long-term maturation of their liabilities.
Actually there are asset managers who do base performance on a rolling multi-year average. American Funds managers are paid based on a three year rolling performance average.
Moreover, the rising inequality in our society is clearly unacceptable. It poses fundamental questions of fairness and whether these levels of income disparity are sustainable within the context of the long-term health and civility of our communities.
Business leaders, as well as compensation committees of boards, need to exert better leadership and shareholders must become more engaged in improving incentive structures. We strongly support "Say on Pay," whereby shareholders vote on the remuneration of executives, and other provisions championed by many institutional investors. We do not support government-mandated compensation caps or other prescribed compensation policies. However, if the business and investment communities do not act, governments may.
A decent analysis with some good points. Of course Gore is a multi-multi-millionaire with his own investment, private equity firm.
Business as usual for another cuomo BS'ing politician. And the best the Republicans can come up with is Rick Lazio? Looks like I'll be wrting in a candidate (again).
“The influence of lobbyists and their special interests must be drastically reduced with new contribution limits,” Mr. Cuomo said last month. “We will be taking on very powerful special interests which have much to lose. We must change systems and cultures long in the making.”
But as he delivered his announcement, Mr. Cuomo was sitting on millions in campaign cash from the very special interests whose influence he said he wanted to limit.
An analysis by The New York Times shows that of the estimated $7.1 million that the Cuomo campaign has received from political action committees, associations, limited liability corporations and other entities, more than half has come from the biggest players in Albany: organized labor, the real estate and related industries like construction, the health care sector and lobbying firms.
Mind you, I think he's entitled to take money from any group - but he is a hypocrite. So what's new?
A Republican, conservative 527 ...
A new 527 group conceived by veteran GOP hands Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie and launched this year with predictions that it would raise $52 million to support Republican candidates has thus far failed to live up to the fundraising hype.
The group, American Crossroads, raised only $200 last month, according to a report it filed Monday with the Internal Revenue Service, bringing its total raised since launching in March to a little more than $1.25 million.
Good article on income and tax disparities.
After dipping in the early part of the Bush administration, by 2007 the top quintile of earners - the 20 percent who made the most - paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the federal government collected, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. That includes a staggering 86 percent of the income tax being paid by just the top quintile of earners.
By contrast, the bottom 40 percent on average not only pay no income tax, but they siphon money back from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a 35-year-old program designed to offset some of what low-income workers pay in Social Security taxes.
The numbers aren't a surprise to those who study the country's financial situation, but the trend raises deep social policy questions: Can a society where the top earners win a far disproportionate amount of the income be stable, and can a democracy survive when those on the lower end get benefits without ever having to pay into the system for them?
Coulter again. Yeah, this is New York all righty. Hit the link for the whole column.
In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct."
As Stan Evans says, whatever liberals disapprove of, they want banned (smoking, guns, practicing Christianity, ROTC, the Pledge of Allegiance) and whatever they approve of, they make mandatory (abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, pornography, condom distribution in public schools, screenings of "An Inconvenient Truth").
When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own dogmas.
A real life Hannibal Lector
Cocaign said he warned prison officials that he was capable of violence, begging to be transferred for psychiatric treatment as he served time for several rapes, among other crimes.
The defense's case hinges on Cocaign's troubled background: He was abandoned by his 21-year-old homeless mother as an infant and was allegedly raped at the age of 13.
"No one was listening to me," Cocaign told the court, according to the AFP. "I made several appeals for help, saying I was a man capable of being dangerous. I took action, and then they took me seriously."
Scored with only three minutes left in the game against Algeria - the only goal scored.
Well certainly the General and his aides were out of line with some of their comments. I haven't read the Rolling Stone article which you can find here and which is all over the internet and the radio. But I've seen and heard excerpts.
Now here's the deeper issue, which I also posted about from a George Will column Afghanistan and "rules of engagement" a couple of days ago.
Byron York in his column yesterday, McChrystal’s real offense
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces.
York then quotes from the rolling Stone article -
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
That's a scandal, for sure.
By the way, in the Rolling Stone article McChrystal said he voted for Obama.
I heard this while in the car this morning - very amusing. I rarely listen to Imus, and didn't realize Beck is frequently on his show.
If the video doesn't appear, below, here's the link:http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/imus/index.html#/v/4249110/glenn-beck-on-new-book/?playlist_id=87057
Butthe vote was only 6-3! What were the minority (including new Judge Sonia Sotomayor - a bad sign for the furture) thinking?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.
“Plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic,” he wrote. “They may speak and write freely about” the Kurdish and Tamil groups, “the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law.” Indeed, the chief justice added, the plaintiffs are free to become members of the two groups.
What they cannot do is make a contribution to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that contribution takes the form of speech. “Such support,” he wrote, “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups” and strains “the United States’ relationships with its allies.”
Justice Breyer, in dissent, said the activities at issue “involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends.”
You'd like to hope that some of the farcical and dangerous decisions in this op ed arethe exception and not the rule ...
Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.
Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people."
Most people are welcoming, but ...
Since they began making follow-up house calls in early May, census takers have encountered vitriol, menace and flashes of violence. They have been shot at with pellet guns and hit by baseball bats. They have been confronted with pickaxes, crossbows and hammers. They've had lawn mowers pushed menacingly toward them and patio tables thrown their way. They have been nibbled by ducks, bitten by pit bulls and chased by packs of snarling dogs.
Some days, being cursed at seems part of the job description.
So far, the Census Bureau has tallied 379 incidents involving assaults or threats on the nation's 635,000 census workers, more than double the 181 recorded during the 2000 census. Weapons were used or threatened in a third of the cases.
Now, with just three weeks to go in the door-knocking phase of the count, the number of census takers has dwindled, and the remaining households are the toughest.
While most homeowners have received census takers graciously, some say they have been surprised at the degree of anger exhibited by Americans who consider them the embodiment of intrusive government.
Nice day. Church, gym, reading, Grandma comes down, Yanks shut out Mets (Yay!), beautiful steaks with an Argentinian sauce (Yum!) and of course a Carvel ice cream cake.
More in the ongoing series of my trying to get decent pictures with Joe and Tim -
marginally better - now I look goofy
Here's Joe, working with his dremel, and cutting a piece of plexiglass. It's to replace a pane in the back storm door that broke. He did a good job and it fit in nicely. The strange helmet/facemask is actually his paintball helmet.
Last, a couple of pictures Brigid took today of Dusty the chinchilla - those are Joe's hands. Dusty will be three years old around the end of November.
UPDATE: A coincidence. After I posted this, I found this on AOL. Father's Day: Celebrating Dad for 100 Years Very good - better then the wiki below
A fair question - this from Wikipedia -
Father's Day is a celebration inaugurated in the early twentieth century to complement Mother's Day in celebrating fatherhood and male parenting. It is also celebrated to honor and commemorate our forefathers. Father's Day is celebrated on a variety of dates worldwide and typically involves gift-giving, special dinners to fathers, and family-oriented activities. The first observance of Father's Day is believed to have been held on June 19, 1910 through the efforts of Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington. After listening to a church sermon at Spokane's Central Methodist Episcopal Church in 1909 about the newly recognized Mother's Day, Dodd felt strongly that fatherhood needed recognition, as well. She wanted a celebration that honored fathers like her own father, William Smart, a Civil War veteran who was left to raise his family alone when his wife died giving birth to their sixth child when Sonora was 16 years old.
Tim informs me we'll be playing a game of monopoly today.
As the Pez's allies in the press jump ship -
I believe it was Jean Giraudoux who first said, "Only the mediocre are always at their best." Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year's boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered President Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they would have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Mr. Matthews' no-longer-tingling leg.
Memo to Secretary Rodham Clinton: Do you find yourself on a quiet evening with a strange craving for chicken dinners and county fairs in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe next summer? Need one of those relaunch books to explain why you're getting back in the game in your country's hour of need?
"It Takes a Spillage."
Another great column by Charles Krauthammer -
How? By creating a glorious, new, clean green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.
But is this not what we've been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot? As with yesterday's panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.
Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry. That's because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.
There's a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It's not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy-dense and easy to use.
Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future "even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet precisely know how we're going to get there." ...
That's why Tuesday's speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision ...
McCain must be kicking himself
Ahhh, this is great news! And I've been remiss in posting this article, which appeared at the end of April in the NY Times.
To be honest I love like slurpees, especially the ones at the 7-11 a couple of miles from my house. Been known to take a detour there, to get one.
They call them slushies in the article, but they are really slurpees - same difference.
... now, a New Zealand endurance athlete and exercise researcher says he has found a method that is. All you have to do is drink an ice slurry, also known as a slushie, before exercising. In a new study, he reports that young male recreational athletes who drank a syrup-flavored ice slurry just before running on a treadmill in hot room could keep going for an average of 50 minutes before they had to stop. When they drank only syrup-flavored cold water, they could run for an average of 40 minutes.
“It’s a really interesting study, well done and carefully thought out,” said Craig Crandell, an exercise physiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who studies the effects of exercising in the heat.
The effect was short-lived, according to the senior investigator, Paul Laursen, at the New Zealand Academy of Sport in Auckland and a competitor who has raced in 13 Ironman triathlons (a 2.4-mile swim followed by a 112-mile bike race followed by a marathon-distance 26.2-mile run). It would not even begin to last long enough to run a marathon or do a century (100-mile) bike ride, for example. But it would be perfect for a sport like tennis or for a 5- or 10-kilometer race or for team sports like soccer or football, and it might give endurance athletes in longer events a boost by letting them beat the heat, to a certain extent, for the first 50 minutes or so.
Yes, more proof that God is good.
Amusing; typical Ann Coulter
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)