Speaking Truth To Impotence

Got this exchange from American Future (it's not long so I'm putting the whole thing up):

Established in 1993, UN Watch is a Geneva-based NGO whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its Charter. Its board of directors includes Alfred H. Moses (former US Ambassador to Romania and Presidential Emissary for the Cyprus Conflict), Per Ahlmark (former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden), Professor Irwin Cotler (former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada), David Harris (American Jewish Committee Executive Director), Max Jakobson (former Permanent Representative of Finland to the UN in New York), and Ruth Wedgwood (professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University). Until her recent death, Jeane Kirkpatrick (former US Permanent Representative to the UN) was on the board.

On March 23, Hillel Neuer, the organization's Executive Director, delivered the following speech to the UN Human Rights Council:

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?
In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh's troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders' dream? With terrible lies, it is being turned into a nightmare.

This is how Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, the Human Rights Council's President, reacted:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records [emphasis added].

Positively Stalinesque, but hardly a surprise.

For more you can go here.

Sometimes it's all I can do to shake my head and wonder, "How did we get here?"

Unclear On The Concept

Another example of why reporters should be forced to take formal logic while in college: by Timothy Noah Novak's Denial, You blew a CIA employee's cover, Bob. Live with it.

Robert Novak remains bizarrely in denial about whether he unmasked a covert employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Actually, if we are going to buy the basic premise here, the "outing" couldn't have been done by Novak because in order for him to even know about it he would have to be informed by someone else (and we know who that is). Novak is one of many people to whom Plame was "unmasked." Novak just reported it.

I will wait anxiously for Noah's piece on how the Pentagon Papers case was wrongly decided.

The Benefits Of Being Too Small To Notice

There are times when I quite enjoying being a one man "dog and pony show" of a blog. For starters I attract far fewer assholes than higher traffic blogs do. People could come here and spout off offensive, mean spirited drivel in the comments, but they would have a small audience, and God knows the point for these folks seems to be to make an ass of themselves in front of the largest group of people possible. It is a very wussy kind of exhibitionism when you think about it...

The other thing you don't get is a target painted on you by the MSM. Take this outright lie perpetrated against Power Line by the Star-Tribune:

Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune has an article on the recent Twin Cities controversies involving taxis and check-out lines. Like so many "news" stories in the Strib, it's an editorial posing as reportage. It begins with an anecdote about a Muslim teenager who decides not to "change who [she is] for $7 an hour" by working for Target, and presumably, scanning bacon. The theme of the article is that the recent incidents are unimportant; the implication is that those who express concern about them are bigots.

I wouldn't bother to comment on this except that the reporter brings us into it:

And the backlash, Bihie says, has struck fear in his Somali community. He says it's hard not to bristle when you read the hundreds of blog postings at the Star Tribune's community Web site, www.buzz.mn, or items like this one, culled from the locally-based Power Line site: "Poor babies can't touch bacon ... boo hoo. Refuse to scan my bacon, and I guarantee you will be wearing it!"

Such vitriol bubbling up from a few incidents has drawn undue attention from non-Muslims, according to Atia Ibrahim....

There you have it. We're vitriolic, and have struck fear into the Somali community. Odd thing, though: I didn't write that line about "poor babies" who "can't touch bacon," and neither did Paul or Scott. That quote never appeared on Power Line.

Of course the intent is to discredit Power Line because they have given the Star-Trib a hard time over the years. Is this really he way newspapers should be devoting their resources? No wonder they are going broke.

Close Only Counts In Horseshoes, Hand Grenades and Global Warming

Michael van der Galien, whose stuff I quite enjoy over at The Moderate Voice, has inadvertently put his finger on what I can't stand about the AGW crowd. And he did it in a single sentence. From Al Gore - Global Warming Expert

Personally, it seems to me that science has proven that it is very likely that human activity increases global warming

[emphasis added]

What constitutes "proof" sure ain't what it used to be.

V For Vendetta

Man, you can certainly tell that Henry Blodget does not like Jim Cramer. That is the only explanation I can give for his more than slightly hysterical rant against the oftentimes slightly hysterical Carmer in Slate. Cramer vs. Cramer, Will his crazy confession destroy his career?

As the New York Post, the New York Times, and Reuters recently reported, Cramer gave an interview on TheStreet.com's Wall Street Confidential in late December (watch it here) that can be read as recommending that hedge funds boost returns by orchestrating stock prices and spreading false information. He said that "this is the way the market really works" and that those who don't do these things "shouldn't be in the game." He also talked about his own practices—orchestrating stock prices—to boost returns at the hedge fund he ran in the 1990s.

Even those familiar with Cramer's "just be outrageous" style will find this clip startling. It raises questions not only about Cramer's activities as a hedge-fund manager, but about his judgment. It also, I think, threatens Cramer's career.

Let's begin by reviewing the definition of illegal market manipulation and what, exactly, Cramer said.

According to the SEC's Web site, market "manipulation" is:

intentional conduct designed to deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the market for a security. Manipulation can involve a number of techniques ... [such as] spreading false or misleading information about a company … or rigging quotes, prices or trades to create a false or deceptive picture of the demand for a security. Those found guilty of manipulation are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

So how was Cramer supposed to have violated these strictures? Cramer said something like the following:

A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund—meaning I needed [the market to go] down—I would create a level of activity before [the market opened] that could drive the [pre-market] futures [down]. … Similarly, if I were long, and I wanted to make things a little bit rosy, I would go in and [buy] a bunch of stocks and make sure that they were higher …

It's a fun game, and it's a lucrative game. You can move [the market] up and then fade it—that often creates a very negative feel. … That's a strategy very worth doing. … I would encourage anyone in the hedge fund game to do it. Because it's legal. And it is a very quick way to make money. And very satisfying.

I'm not sure how often Blodget watches Cramer's Mad Money TV show on CNBC, but it has to be less than I do, because I know what Cramer is talking about because he has stated it on his show numerous times. (For the record I catch parts of Mad Money a couple times a week, and a whole show once in a blue moon, so you need not have been a devotee to learn this stuff.) Hedge funds are not like you and me for various reasons. For starters the sheer size of the investments they make will have an affect on the markets no matter what. Money drives the market. Hedge funds have crap loads of money. Therefore hedge funds drive the market. If that is manipulation than every hedge fund is guilty. Secondly, there are whole categories of investors watching and waiting to see what the big funds do. People believe that the big funds know things they don't know. So if a fund starts selling a particular stock, people will believe it is because they have figured out or found out something negative about the company that is causing the selling.

Cramer tells folks that this simply isn't true. Hedge funds will be "down" on one stock and "up" on another not because of anything to do with the fundamentals of the companies involved, but because being "down" on a stock is how they are betting they can make money. Cramer stated: You can move [the market] up and then fade it—that often creates a very negative feel. "Feel" is exactly the right word here. Patterns of buying or selling will make a psychological impression on the people who watch hedge funds, that may lead people to under or over value a stock for no good reason. In what way is that "artificially affecting" the market? If Cramer or any other hedge fund manager is talking to a reporter who asks why they were selling stock X, and they respond that they really don't like it there is nothing wrong with that. If the bozos (Cramer's term) print or report that on TV, how is there anything wrong with that? If they had set up their investments in such a way that not liking a stock could make them money, they have every right to continue to not like the stock. If the financial reporters do not do their homework and simply report the gossip without checking it out first the only blame lies with the reporters.

More Cramer:

[Y]ou've really got to control the market. You can't let it lift. When you get a [bellwether stock that is soaring like] Research in Motion, it's really important to use a lot of your firepower to knock that down. … So, let's say I were short. What I would do is hit a lot of guys with RIMM [sell a lot of Research in Motion stock to a lot of investors].

Blodget says:

Cramer draws a line in the sand—briefly making it look as though he is not suggesting that hedge funds break the law. Then, he appears to recommend that they do.

Now, you can't "foment." That's a violation. You can't create yourself an impression that a stock's down. But you do it anyway, because the SEC doesn't understand it. [my emphasis]. That's the only sense that I would say this is illegal. But a hedge fund that's not up a lot [this late in the year] really has to do a lot now to save itself.

This is different from what I was talking about at the beginning where I was talking about buying the QQQs and stuff. This is actually blatantly illegal. But when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you're down, I think it's really important to foment—if I were one of these guys—foment an impression that Research in Motion isn't any good. Because Research in Motion is the key today.

Blodget could have saved his readers a little bit of time by trying to parse Cramer speak a little bit here. 'Now, you can't "foment." That's a violation. You can't create yourself an impression that a stock's down. But you do it anyway, because the SEC doesn't understand it.'

You can't go around lying to people about the status of a company's profitability. That is illegal. Cramer is telling us that hedge funds do not HAVE to tell people lies. If they act like they don't like a stock, by selling it for example, people who hawk over the hedge funds will draw their own conclusions. The results often drive the market in exactly the way the hedge fund manager want it. How can you make people drawing conclusions illegal?

Cramer sums up what he thinks goes on:

The great thing about the market is it has nothing to do with the actual stocks. Now, maybe two weeks from now, the buyers will come to their senses and realize that everything that they heard was a lie, but then again, Fannie Mae lied about their earnings for $6 billion, so there's just fiction and fiction and fiction.

I think it's important for people to recognize that the way that the market really works is to have that nexus of: Hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that can push [the stock] down, then leak it to the press, and then get it on CNBC—that's also very important. And then you have a kind of a vicious cycle down. It's a pretty good game.

Cramer has stated this scenario more than once on Mad Money to point out how the market can really work so that the "home gamers" have a clue what might be going on. So, with this knowledge, if you have a position in a strong company with good "fundies", you might not panic sell because of a hedge fund driven sell off. How is that a bad thing?

Blodget continues:

Is that the "way the market really works"? After a decade on Wall Street, I think it's plausible that some hedge funds play such games. Do all of them? No. Do hedge funds and other investors have to break laws to do well? Absolutely not.

This would make sense if he could point out exactly how this could be construed as breaking the law. All Jim Cramer has done is to have the unmitigated Gaul to point out that a lot of the market is driven by irrational forces and that the good hedge fund managers try to make money off of those tendencies.

The Suspense Was Killing Me

Now, I can finally relax. In an announcement that has the potential of influencing several members of his own family, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has endorsed Hillary Clinton:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack will endorse U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential run Monday, an official close to the situation said today.

Vilsack gave up his own run for the presidency in February, setting up a scramble for his supporters. He is widely considered a possible pick for vice president or a cabinet post if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

I actually sort of liked Vilsack. I thought he fell off the rails when he tried veering WAY left in a quixotic attempt to appeal to the nutroots, but he otherwise had a pragmatic streak in him that, I felt, could appeal to centrists.

I tend to doubt if anyone with the last name Vilsack could be elected President, but that is another story...

A Case Of The Creeps

As if the severed dog head as Valentine wasn't bad enough, the Indianapolis Star has this story: Greenfield teacher fired over relationship with student

Greenfield-Central school officials fired a middle school teacher this morning over what they characterized as an improper relationship between the teacher and a student.

Officials said Trina Moore, 40, developed an intense friendship with a seventh-grade girl and, during some weeks, spent hours per day outside school hours in the girl's company, talking to her on the phone or e-mailing with her.

Moore's attorneys said there was nothing improper about the relationship.

School officials said Moore refused to cease contacting the girl, however, even when instructed to do so by Greenfield Middle School Principal Jim Bever and despite complaints by the girl's mother.

School officials said the teacher already had been previously warned about getting too personally involved with students.

"These relationships arose out of teacher-student relationships, but evolved into intense personal relationships that exceed the bounds of a healthy teacher-student relationship," school officials wrote in a document explaining the School Board's decision to fire the teacher.

The board held a special meeting this morning to vote on terminating Moore's contract.

No one has suggested the relationship was sexual in nature, school officials said.

It seems the teacher involved is convinced she did nothing "wrong." I'm positive she did do something wrong. I saw this up close when I was the same age as the student in this story. A female friend of mine got a lot, and I mean a whole lot, or extra attention from our 7th grade teacher. It was very noticeable, and my friend was very uncomfortable about it. Hell, everyone in our circle of friends was uncomfortable about it. As in this current case there was never a suggestion of sexual abuse, but there was the expected teasing that went on among some of our classmates about how she had been chosen by the "lesbian" teacher. (Give 'em a break, they were 12 year olds.) When it was brought up in conversation, my friend would be embarrassed and really not know what to say. She realized it was an unnaturally intense relationship for a teacher to have with a young student, but she didn't know how to tell an adult to stop showering her with attention. Therein lies the "wrongness" of these types of situations. This is not the proper venue for "friendship" in any sense of the word. The distance between Teacher and Student, Adult and Child are simply too great to be bridged. This is not the meeting of equals, so there cannot be real friendship. Most people know this instinctively, but some people do not understand.

Moore's attorney said the teacher is considering a legal appeal of the board's decision.
"The relationship between this teacher and this student was undisputed as a helpful, supportive relationship," said Kevin Betz, Moore's attorney.

Phone records obtained through the school's investigation indicate that Moore spent more than 11 hours on the phone with the student on one day in June of 2006 and spent similar amounts of phone time with the girl on several other days.

Greenfield-Central Superintendent Linda Gellert said teachers must exercise sound judgment.

"There need to be well-established boundaries," Gellert said. "The expectation is that teachers will maintain a professional decorum with children. I think you have to be careful when you try to be friends with children."

It simply does not matter if the teacher is "nice" or "supportive" to the student. The fact that the teacher was warned about having too close a contact with the child and that the behavior persisted underscores the fact that this was an inherently unhealthy compulsion on the part of the teacher.

This doesn't mean we have to go completely the other direction and have every student be a stranger to every teacher, but there have to be boundaries.

Just as teachers are not employed to take their students as lovers, they are also not employed to take them as their new best friend.

The Absolute Worst Method For Picking Up A Girl Ever

Suspect arrested in delivery of dog's head to neighbor

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) -- A 24-year-old man has been arrested, suspected of cutting the head off of a 17-year-old girl's pet dog and leaving it at her front door in a gift-wrapped box.

The man, who is expected to be arraigned Friday, was being held on suspicion of terrorist threats. Police said he may be charged with animal cruelty.

"I think I can sleep a lot better now," said Crystal Brown. "It will make me feel way safer. Now we can walk around the whole block."

Crystal was devastated last month when Chevy, her 4-year-old Australian shepherd mix, went missing.

Two weeks after the dog disappeared, a gift box addressed to Crystal was found at the front door of a house she shares with her grandmother.

Inside, Crystal found Valentine's Day candy and a garbage bag containing her pet's head.

Police said the man they arrested lived a few blocks from Crystal and may have had a romantic interest in the girl.

See, he was just crying out for love.

America's New National Pastime

There is a new craze sweeping the nation. It is called, digging up dead famous people. A couple of weeks back it was The Big Bopper, today it is Harry Houdini.

For all his death-defying stunts, Harry Houdini couldn't escape the Grim Reaper: He died on Halloween 1926, apparently from a punch to the stomach that ruptured his appendix. But rumors that he was murdered have persisted for decades. Eighty-one years after Houdini's death, his great-nephew wants the escape artist's body exhumed to determine if enemies poisoned him for debunking their bogus claims of contact with the dead.

"It needs to be looked at," George Hardeen told The Associated Press. "His death shocked the entire nation, if not the world. Now, maybe it's time to take a second look."

Houdini's family scheduled a news conference for Friday to give details on the plans. Prominent New York lawyer Joseph Tacopina is helping clear any legal hurdles to the exhumation.

A team of top forensic investigators would conduct new tests on Houdini's body, said Hardeen, whose grandfather was Houdini's brother.

The circumstances surrounding Houdini's sudden death are as murky as the rivers where he often escaped from chains, locks and wooden boxes.

The generally accepted version was that Houdini, 52, suffered a ruptured appendix from a punch in the stomach, leading to a fatal case of peritonitis. But no autopsy was performed.

When the death certificate was filed on Nov. 20, 1926, Houdini's body — brought by train from Detroit to Manhattan — had already been buried in Queens, along with any evidence of a possible death plot.

Within days, a newspaper headline wondered, "Was Houdini Murdered?"

You know there will be no end to all of this. I can already imagine the reality series it could spawn...Autopsy With The Stars.

Celebrities everywhere should be rushing to get that line about demanding cremation into their wills ASAP.

Brewing Up Some Macca

On the CNN Website:

McCartney is 1st to sign with Starbucks label

Paul McCartney was introduced Wednesday as the first artist signed to Starbucks Corp.'s new record label.

The former Beatle made an appearance via a video feed from London at the company's annual meeting.

The world's largest specialty coffee retailer announced earlier this month that it was partnering with Concord Music Group to launch the Los Angeles-based Hear Music label.

The McCartney announcement is another big step for Seattle-based Starbucks' attempts to spin part of its consumer appeal into the entertainment business. The coffeehouse chain already has produced and sold some albums, markets books, and helped develop a feature-length movie.

Hear Music has been used as a brand on other releases developed for sale in Starbucks stores. The coffee giant also has a branded page on Apple Inc.'s iTunes digital music store, and a handful of hybrid music-and-coffee stores that allow customers to burn tracks to CDs.

I have to wonder if there is any method to the Starbucks madness. I mean, what is the approach of this "label." What sort of demographic are they pursuing? Will it be glorified "muzak" for ageing baby boomers? This may be a little harsh on McCartney whose last album Chaos and Creation in the Backyard was actually pretty damn good. The truth remains, however, that very few people actually bought the CD. I simply doubt that baby boomers are a viable music buying demographic for building a label around.

Rock and Roll. Sipping a latte. Do they really go together?

The NHL Is Now In The Business Of Killing Blues Fans

I posted the following over at my sports blog, but I wanted to spread the condemnations far and wide:

Apparently an elderly Blues fan blew a gasket after the display of NHL incompetence last night and died of the resulting heart attack late in the game. It's sad to think that among his very last thoughts was about how this league continues to screw over the Blues.

R.I.P.

God, knows I'll be joining you one day and for the same reason; Death by NHL referee.

The Blues and the Post-Dispatch are not pleased.

Jeff Gordon's take: Send in the clowns -- an upgrade over NHL refs

The Blues are working hard to the end. They are busting their tails night after night. They are establishing team pride and integrity during the final weeks of the season.

So it is only fair that they expect the NHL officials to maintain their integrity while working their games -– and to not hand victories to the other side, as they did Tuesday night.

This team has been on the wrong side of poor calls and inexplicable non-calls in recent games, culminating with the fiasco against Ottawa at the Scottrade Center.

NHL referees Mick “Mister” McGeough and Dennis LaRue refused to acknowledge one obvious goal, then waved off a second obvious goal. The first goal would have given the Blues a 3-2 lead and the second would have tied the game 3-3. Advertisement


“It’s a disgrace,” Blues president John Davidson said.

“Unreal,” Blues coach Andy Murray said.

“This should not happen in this day and age,” Blues center Doug Weight said.

On the first goal, er, non-goal, Brad Boyes took a third-period pass from Weight at the left post and jammed the puck toward the empty goal. Senators goaltender Martin Gerber dove back, reached into the goal with his stick and knocked the puck back out.

This was a goal, clear as could be.

But the goal judge didn’t see it. McGeough and LaRue missed it, too. They didn’t ask for a video review. They rushed to restart play. And video review judge Jerry Burt didn’t call down to notify the officials of their blunder until after play had resumed.

Davidson was furious in the press box. Murray was furious on the bench, since he had been notified, before play resumed, that Boyes shot was well into the net. Blues players were baffled on the ice, especially when the review horn sounded while they had control of the puck in the offensive zone.

What was going on here?

“There are 25 cameras,” an exasperated Weight said afterward. “Certain people have certain jobs to do.”

The NHL has gone to great lengths to operate an elaborate replay system. There is a replay judge in the press box. There are observers in a Toronto war room, carefully examining every close goal-mouth call in televised league games.

Blues games have been stopped for an eternity while these observers used the latest video technology to back up, slow down, blow up and digitally enhance replays. I’ve seen goals counted against the Blues when all replays appeared utterly inconclusive to the naked eye.

It is impressive, the lengths the league goes to in examining potential goals.

And yet, the Blues scored an obvious against Ottawa and it doesn’t count because all the officials involved -– on the ice, in the booth, in Toronto -– refused to do their job correctly.

I understand the Senators are fighting for playoff positioning and the Blues are not, but there ought to be some semblance of fairness in the NHL.

Had the referees merely missed the goal, it would be no big deal. That happens all the time, especially with lightly regarded referees like McGeough and LaRue.

(Among the phrases uttered around the Blues dressing room Tuesday night was “clown nose.” But I’m not telling who said it, because that person would get fined.)

That is why the NHL has gone to great lengths to back up the officials. The fact this replay system was simply ignored, to Ottawa’s obvious benefit . . . well, that is shocking.

BUT IT GETS WORSE!

The officials tried to offset their mistake by calling a series of penalties on the Senators, who responded by scoring a go-ahead shorthanded goal. With a bit more than two minutes left to play, Blues power forward David Backes scored the tying goal by jamming home a loose puck in the crease.

McGeough, though, disallowed the goal even through he hadn’t stopped play. He claimed Gerber had covered the puck, which, in reality, never happened.

The referee said he was in the process of blowing his whistle when the puck went into the net. Yeah, like Gerber was “in the process” of covering the puck when Backes scored. Please.

“Why would he blow the whistle?” Murray wondered. “The puck was moving.”

Again, replays were damning. This time there was nothing the review judge or the Toronto war room could do (or not do) to fix the error. The call was McGeough’s to make -- and, in this case, to blow.

The Senators got their two points and the Blues got some bad explanations. Should the franchise demand an apology?

“What does an apology do for us right now?” Murray said.

What the Blues can request, going forward, is an honest effort from the officials in every single game. If they are going to give their best shot during these dog days of the season, it is reasonable to expect the NHL’s on-ice and off-ice officials to do the same.

You hardly ever see such an open condemnation of officiating coming from a major newspaper, but last night's game was so bad it couldn't be ignored. You simply cannot pretend it wasn't happening.

Fire Larue.

Building A Better Mosquito

The AP via USA Today: Malaria-resistant mosquito developed

Researchers have developed a malaria-resistant mosquito, a step that might one day help block the spread of an illness that has claimed millions of lives around the world.
When they fed on malaria-infected mice, the resistant mosquitoes had a higher survival rate than non-resistant ones, meaning they could eventually replace the ones that can carry the disease, according to a report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Jason Rasgon of the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University cautioned that the research so far is only a proof of principle and any field tests remain far away.

Nonetheless, it's a goal eagerly sought by scientists in hope of developing a practical way of blocking the spread of malaria.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 700,000 to 2.7 million people die of malaria each year, 75% of them African children.

Working with the mouse form of malaria — not the human type — Rasgon's team was able to genetically engineer mosquitoes that were resistant to malaria.

Malaria infection does exact a toll on mosquitoes and in laboratory work they found that the resistant insects were able to outcompete non-resistant mosquitoes.

Starting with the same number of resistant and non-resistant mosquitoes, they found that after nine generations the resistant type made up 70% of the population — raising the possibility of replacing regular mosquitoes with resistant ones that don't spread disease.

The sad thing is, if those nuts who protest against genetically altered food are consistent they will try to oppose this effort as well. They will probably call them "Frankenmosquitoes" or something.

Why doesn't the MSM treat those folks like the flat-worlders they really are?

Monday's Moron

From the AP via CNN: Cuddly polar bear cub better off dead, activist says

Berlin Zoo's abandoned polar bear cub Knut looks cute, cuddly and has become a front-page media darling, but an animal rights activist insisted Monday he would have been better off dead than raised by humans.

"Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.

"The zoo must kill the bear."

When Knut -- or "Cute Knut," as the 8.7 kilogram (19 pound) bear has become known -- was born last December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who later died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.

The story prompted quick condemnations from the zoo, politicians and other animal rights groups.

"When in doubt kill it." How "retro" (in a German sort of way.)

Actually, this is a two for one Moron Monday:

But Knut belongs to the Berlin Zoo, and their veterinarian Andre Schuele, charged with caring for him, disagrees.

"These criticisms make me angry, but you can't take them so seriously," Andre Schuele said. "Polar bears live alone in the wild; I see no logical reason why this bear should be killed."

Schuele also argued that given the increased rarity of polar bears in the wild, it makes sense to keep them alive in captivity so that they can be bred.

"Polar bears are under threat of extinction, and if we feed the bear with a bottle, it has a good chance of growing up and perhaps becoming attractive as a stud for other zoos," Schuele said.

Someone should tell those Canadian polar bear to stop reproducing in such large numbers. Didn't they get the memo that they were supposed to be going extinct?

Let's stay on script people!

Indy IV Update

From the AP: Blanchett could be 'Indy's' next love

Cate Blanchett is in negotiations to star opposite Harrison Ford in the long-awaited fourth installment of the "Indiana Jones" series, her publicist confirmed Saturday.

"She is in negotiations, yes," publicist Lisa Kasteler told The Associated Press. She did not elaborate.

Filming is scheduled to begin later this year, with Steven Spielberg on board to direct. The movie is being produced by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas' Lucasfilm Ltd.

It has taken seemingly forever to get this movie going, but it actually looks like it will be happening, although I'm a little surprised that they haven't got whatever part Blanchett would be playing cast already...at least if they are really going to start filming this year.

Trying To Keep Their Story Straight

As time marches on I increasingly get the feeling that the members of the "global warming consensus" are more like co-conspirators of some large criminal enterprise than they are like scientists. The near hysterical drive for purity and "consensus" has the ring of someone desperately hoping their alibi will hold water. But, of course, it simply cannot. The myth of "consensus" is suffering the death of a thousand cuts, but the zealots don't realize it yet.

In this vein, here is a new example of muddle headed thinking from the BBC: Caution urged on climate 'risks'

Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

Both men hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause.

But they think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

As an example, they point to a recent statement from one of the foremost US science bodies - the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The association released a strongly worded statement at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.

"It's certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC News.

"I suspect it refers to evidence [ed. evidence the loyal readers of the Iconic Midwest already know does not exist] that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming; but to make the blanket assumption that all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early yet."

So even in this article cautioning against the over-reach of climate science claims, there is a serious over-reach of climate science claims. They simply cannot help themselves, and for good reason...although it has nothing to do with good science.

A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature claims.

"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard against that - it would be very damaging.

"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want to undermine that case by crying wolf."

Think about these statements for a second. If your concern was doing good scientific research, would such statements make any sense? The answer is, of course, no. They are in fact nonsense from a scientific point of view. Science doesn't care about "crying wolf". It cares about verifiable evidence. The shooting down of unverifiable hypothesis is actually a main component of the scientific method, and it is a never ending process.

So why all the hand-wringing about "crying wolf"? Well, obviously it has to do with politics. There is a political agenda that these folks wish to implement via scientific fiat, and the quickest way to undermine their political support is to make dire predictions that do not come to pass. Science might not care about "crying wolf," but public opinion does.

Notice, for example, how claims that current warming might be occurring due to non-human factors are treated. Such claims are denounced out of hand simply because they do not support the pre-ordained political agenda. At that point real science becomes a danger. That is why you have the current campaigns to marginalize those who wish to keep the path of scientific inquiry open. That is why you have folks like Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts BOTH global warming AND a large anthropogenic component to it, treated as a traitor because he doesn't support the pre-ordained political solutions advocated. They also do not like the fact he keeps an open mind and will dispassionately look at all the available evidence. Such people are anathema to their vision of ideological purity and must be eliminated from the discussion. Thus the (thankfully failed) campaign in Denmark to destroy Lomborg's career.

It was customary for scientists to see themselves as versions of Galileo, standing up against the roadblocks to free inquiry set up by modern day equivalents to the Catholic Church. I'm not sure the analogy applies any longer, or maybe if it does apply it only does so in reverse.