April 30, 2006
Well, three teetotal months did me no good whatsoever. In fact, I ran worse than my last two marathons despite more training. So, based on a sample of one, that being me, I’ve concluded moderate alcohol consumption does not adversely affect marathon performance.
So, why can’t I repeat my best performance of 2004? I’ve run four marathons since and not come close. There is one other factor to consider. In 2004 I was able to walk to work. I racked up 20 miles per week just walking to work. Then, our team was moved to another office 10 miles away, and I had to commute by car. Since then, I’ve sucked.
Next experiment: start walking 20 miles per week on top of 30-50 miles of running. If my times improve I’ll be able to write a book with a catchy title like “Walk your way to marathon success”.
Of course, there is another factor to consider. Age. I’m getting older. That factor, I can’t do much about. I can slow the rate of decline a bit, but I can’t stave off the inevitable.
April 27, 2006
I’m off to run a marathon and won’t be back until Sunday.
Why would a middle-aged, un-athletic, former smoker and moderate drinker subject himself to 26.2 miles of torture? Actually, I’ve run 660 miles since December 11th last year in training. The race itself is just the icing on the cake. The bigger question is why would I commit to so much training just to run one race? The short answer is that it is a necessary prerequisite to running the marathon. The longer answer is that I find marathon training a very satisfying way to stay in shape.
This time I stopped drinking on February 1st. No wine with dinner. No beers after a run. No alcohol whatsoever. Strangely, it was incredibly easy to stop. My wife has continued wine with meals but I’ve not been tempted. I’m hoping my virtue will be rewarded with a decent time. My best marathon time is 3 hours 42 minutes set in 2004 after two months of abstinence. Last year I wasn’t so virtuous and failed to break 4 hours in 3 attempts. So, this is a wildly unscientific experiment to see if moderate alcohol consumption adversely impacts marathon performance.
If I run a good time – say 3 hours 50 mintes or better, I’ll be forced to conclude that not drinking is good for me. That would be a most unsatisfying conclusion.
April 26, 2006
James Hudnall has a great piece analysing the Global Warming hype.
In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171 report by Dan H. Rothman, Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT did a study of 500 million years of the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration. This was done by examining the “chemical weathering of rocks, volcanic and metamorphic degassing, and the burial of organic carbon, along with considerations related to the isotopic content of organic carbon and strontium in marine sedimentary rocks”. What they found was: “Over the bulk of the record, earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuates between values that are two to four times greater than that of today at a dominant period on the order of 100 million years. For the last 175 million years, however, there has been a rather steady long-term decline in the air’s CO2 content.”
A large part of the IPCC TAR report are based on computer models that have been peer-reviewed by many scientists, as above, who have pointed out the flawed math and jury-rigged computer models to support a largely absurd premise. e.g. It’s man’s fault that the climate changes.
In fact, you know the whole thing is a joke when they had to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. That way, they could say it’s happening no matter what. They’re using a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Anytime the weather gets weird, as it often does, they can claim it’s proof. But the climate is always changing. It always has.
Read the whole piece. A couple of years ago I did a long post looking at Michael Mann’s bogus hockey-stick. I concluded:
Climate activists claim that human induced greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a catastrophic increase in global temperatures. In their view, recent warming trends over the last century are solely due to human influence and mans’ burning of fossil fuels has disturbed a natural equilibrium that goes back at least a thousand years. Mann’s hockey stick is their proof and they deny that there even was a MWP or LIA. Mann himself denies that there ever was a warmer period than the 1990s over the last 1000 years. But the weight of scientific evidence will eventually break Mann’s hockey stick and the consensus view based on it
If you are worried about CO2 emissions, just think of it as plant-food in the sky. Human CO2 creation is simply returning CO2 back to the atmosphere.
April 25, 2006
There seems to be a double-standard operating here. Sandy (Burglar) Berger got a slap on the wrist for stealing and destroying highly classified papers. Joe Wilson is a hero for lying about his mission to Niger. Nobody batted an eyelid when Senator Jay Rockefeller told the Syrians that Bush was going to invade Iraq. It’s way past time for Clintonista leakers to be dealt with using the full force of the law.
April 23, 2006
Well, the Allies never did get Hitler. It is unlikely that killing him once the war was underway would have stopped the war. Nazism had taken hold of the German nation and had its own momentum.
Here’s what leading Democrats are saying, according to Fox News:
Democratic Rep. Jane Harman said the tape is a reminder that bin Laden is still at large four years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“We haven’t been able to find him. Part of the reason is because we’ve been bogged down in Iraq,” Harman said in a joint appearance with Hoekstra on FOX.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry said the emergence of a new tape reflects the fundamental problems that the Bush administration faces in the fight against terrorism, including an insufficient effort to commit American troops.
“It underscores the failure of this administration to capture him,” Kerry said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Killing Osama won’t stop radical Islam’s war on us, either. It may even intensify as more Muslim fanatics try to avenge Osama’s death. Osama is hiding out in the tribal border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. America could flush him out with a full scale invasion of that region. But surely Harman and Kerry aren’t recommending that course of action. The costs would be prohibitive. Pakistan, nuclear-armed Pakistan, would be dangerously destabilized by such an action. Thousands of tribal people would die as they took up futile arms against US forces. The US would be making exactly the same mistake as the Soviets made in Afghanistan. If we can’t get Osama by the covert methods currently being employed, then we are doing the next best thing by keeping him bottled up and out of touch. His periodic tapes simply serve to remind us that we are still at war with radical Islam.
April 23, 2006
The Bush Administration seemed powerless to stop the steady stream of leaks from the CIA, Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon throughout the 2004 Presidential campaign and beyond. Every leak was designed to undermine the President. The decision to take down Saddam was seen as a golden opportunity to destroy the Bush Presidency. It was not as if the Clintonistas didn’t see Saddam as a danger to US interests; the Clinton administration had made it a national policy to replace Saddam but Clinton lacked the guts to do it. The Clintonistas simply think destroying Bush is more important than defeating radical Islam and the regimes that support the radicals.
The administration seemed to be forced into the decision to appoint a special prosector to investigate the Plame leak. Despite the fact that no one, least of all Fitzgerald, has produced any evidence that a crime was committed, the investigation went ahead. The MSM applauded the deal and the left, exemplified by Joe Wilson’s vision of Karl Rove being frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, salivated. But this investigation has had some benefits for the administration. Reporters found they were no longer above the law when it came to identifying leakers. The MSM is slowly coming to realize that leakers and those who publish national security secrets are in danger of prosecution. But, they cannot claim unfair treatment; it was, after all, the MSM that insisted on identifying who leaked Plame’s identity.
Is the firing of Mary McCarthy related to the Plame Blame Game? Some bloggers have found intruiging links. Just One Minute notes that Wilson and McCarthy both served on the National Security Council from June 1997 to July 1998. Via Flopping Aces and Free Republic, we find that McCarthy was a member of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Her bio, as it was published by CSIS, reads:
Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA’s deputy director for science and technology. Until July 2001, she served as special assistant to the president and senior director for intelligence programs on the National Security Council (NSC) Staff, under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. From 1991 until her appointment to the NSC, McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council. She began her government service as an analyst, then manager, in CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence, holding positions in both African and Latin American analysis. From 1979 to 1984 she was employed by BERI, S.A., conducting financial, operational, and political risk assessments for multinational companies and banks. Previously she had taught at the University of Minnesota and was director of the Social Science Data Archive at Yale University. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University, an M.A. in library science from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota. She is the author of Social Change and the Growth of British Power in the Gold Coast (University Press of America, 1983).
Her fellow experts at CSIS include Bush-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rumsfeld-hater Anthony Zinni, former Republican Senator and Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen, Sam Nunn, and Henry Kissinger. She moved in high-powered circles and that makes her a big fish. Perhaps the most delicious prospect is that she was hooked passing on bogus information, as Right wing Nuthouse explains.
Was she connected to the Plame Blame Game plot? Pobably not in the genesis of the plot, but likely in the referral of this bogus leak to the DOJ, as AJStrata notes. Whatever, the Mary McCarthy prison leak affair promises to be much more fun than the Plame Blame Game, much to the discomfiture of Clintonistas everywhere.
April 20, 2006
In no particular order, they are:
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
Powerline gets to the point with their post titled The Pulitzer Prize for Treason:
What about the Pulitzer Prize committee? When Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for the Times in connection with his mendacious coverage of Stalin’s Soviet Union, he performed valuable public relations work for a mass murderer. He nevertheless did no direct harm to the United States. Today’s Pulitzer Prize award to the Times brings a new shame to the Pulitzer Prize committee that builds on its disgrace last year via the award to the AP.
Mark Steyn, in reference to that post, writes:
This Powerline analysis is devastating and correct. One of the reasons “big” journalism is becoming ever more contemptible to the wider public is because it’s so hicky and parochial: Journalistic institutions like the Pulitzers see the media as a world in and of itself rather than as merely observers of the real world. Whether or not to scuttle the NSA surveillance program is not about winning a prize but about winning a war – and the inability of the press to understand that reflects very poorly on them.
I’m ineligible. And, after the quasi-collaborationist AP photo awards and the national security-damaging NYT awards, that’s just as well because I wouldn’t want the thing in the house.
There we have it, folks. The terrorists strategy is very simple. Create enough headlines in the MSM and the American public will no longer have the stomach to continue the fight. So far they’ve won over the Democratic party, and that’s close to half the electorate.
Next Page »