Daily Kos: Cao (R-LA) “suggests” BP exec commit suicide!

more about "Daily Kos: Holy Crap: Cao (R-LA) sugg…", posted with vodpod

This is one Republican that I agree with (this time). Then again, he gave the House HCR bill (the first one; not the “reconciliation” one) its only Republican vote.

Sarah Palin makes a fool of herself on the BP spill issue on O’Reilly

Watch and enjoy.

16 June 2010: Pair Up For Health 3 miles

Workout notes 1800 yards (1 mile) swimming; 5 x 100 on 2 (1:53-56), 4 x (25 3g, 25 free), 50, 4 x (25 3g, 25 free), 50, 5 x 100 on 2 (1:46 (3), 1:43 (2)) 6 x (25 free/25 back)
Then rotator cuff exercises, abs. Shoulder: not that bad; some pings in the “left” shoulder which surprised me a bit.

I talked about my race here; I walked but still finished 1′st in my age group (yes, others showed up) and 70 out of 185 overall.

Photos (yes, I paid for the photo download )

The “going down the slide” part:

early: going over the hay bale and trying to get back to a walk:

My goodness, I look clumsy and awkward. Oh wait… I AM clumsy and awkward.

Contrast that to the front runners (who were running):

The bodies of good athletes just do different things when they move.

16 June 2010-am

Posts (workout will be later today)

President Obama’s BP spill address

Ok, I could have done without the god stuff toward the end; that was lame. But for the most part, I thought it was ok.
Of course, the right wingers won’t like it, and many on the left wanted more fire and brimstone against big oil (here, or here)

Frankly, this captures my attitude: this address really wasn’t aimed at the political/news junkies:

This was not a speech for us.

It was a speech for the average American who heard something of an oil leak located vaguely downwards. Hell, three people I work with hadn’t even HEARD of it at ALL until I brought it up last week.

People like that wouldn’t understand a comprehensive plan, wouldn’t care about it, wouldn’t want to sit around and listen about it.

They want to know the “what,” “why,” and “when” of the clean-up and the reform. You and I are interested in the “how” as well.

His speech was designed to be a pep-talk. It was designed to give basic facts and to leave average Americans feeling slightly better somehow about this whole situation.

We were not his audience for this speech, so getting pissed that it didn’t cater to what we look for is beyond ridiculous.

Whatever policy he would like to pass needs to make it through the Senate, filled with corporate politicians and Blue Dogs looking for some press time.

I’d like to head off all the knee-jerk “You’re an Obama-bot” or “We’re just holding his feet to the fire and not worshiping Obama-God” crap that flows in these sorts of quasi-meta fights by stating that I am not happy with how this oil spill has been handled. I want more, I want to hear more, and I want to see more as well.

I’m also able to see the purpose of tonight’s speech was not for Obama to give the final word on environmental issues or the oil spill, nor to let us know the “how” we’re all craving.

I hope like hell it’s coming soon and it’s comprehensive, but getting upset because Obama didn’t give us a comprehensive, detailed plan of attack for the spill and for getting off fossil fuels like 3 minutes after his speech ended is insipid.

Not quite as insipid with how quickly the diary in question made it to the top of the list, but that’s no surprise there, given the current climate of Daily Kos these days.

Sometimes my fellow lefties forget that most of the public isn’t like us and that the Republican politicians are closer to the right wing base than the Democrats are to the left wing base.

So how is the President doing in terms of job approval?
Here is a bit of reality:

Note: the numbers haven’t been smoothed for President Obama’s “this month” approval rating, but you can see the raw graphs; not much difference between him, President Reagan and President Clinton in terms of job approval ratings.

Intrade:
From here

So, the Republicans who are currently running off their mouths about the President being a “one term president” have no data to back that up; only their opinions.

Other stuff
Humor and working out: this post about the Army “PT” and their required workout gear was hilarious. It wasn’t quite that bad in the Navy when I was in it (1981-1985), but they had rules about shirts, etc.

Speaking of working out: Secretary Ray LaHood (whose appointment I opposed…I was very wrong here) has some good news about the use of running, walking and cycling trails and paths:

Now, the original goal of The National Biking and Walking Study submitted in 1994 was to “double the percentage of total trips made by bicycling and walking from 7.9% to 15.8% of all travel trips.”

Americans are walking In transportation circles, we call that percentage “mode share,” and any planner will tell you that doubling mode share is an ambitious goal. But it turns out that we’re getting there.

According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, bicycling and walking now account for 11.9% of all trips. It’s not the 15.8% we hoped to see, but–considering the increase in population and overall number of trips–it’s progress.

Even better, the safety data is also promising. From 1994 to 2008, the number of pedestrians killed decreased by 22.3% and the number of bicyclists killed decreased by 12%. Since the number of trips taken on foot or on bike has more than doubled in the same period, those declines are a good sign of increased safety.

Also, even as the percentage of all trips taken on foot or on bicycle has increased in the same period, the number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of all traffic fatalities has dropped. Again, not only have bicycling and walking gained in mode share, but they’ve also gained in relative safety.

Mind: when planning trips, people tend to have a “southern bias”:

People making travel plans may unwittingly heed a strange rule of thumb — southern routes rule. In a new experiment, volunteers chose paths that dipped south over routes of the same distance that arched northward, perhaps because northern routes intuitively seem uphill and thus more difficult, researchers suggest.

Volunteers also estimated that it would take considerably longer to drive between the same pairs of U.S. cities if traveling from south to north, as opposed to north to south, says psychologist and study director Tad Brunyé of the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command in Natick, Mass., and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. For journeys that averaged 798 miles, time estimates for north-going jaunts averaged one hour and 39 minutes more than south-going trips, he and his colleagues report in an upcoming Memory & Cognition.

“This finding suggests that when people plan to travel across long distances, a ‘north is up’ heuristic might compromise their accuracy in estimating trip durations,” Brunyé says.

Only individuals who adopted a first-person, ground-level perspective treated southern routes as the paths of least resistance, he notes. From this vantage, one moves forward and back, right and left.

No southern leaning characterized those who assessed routes from a bird’s-eye view. This type of navigation uses the directional terms north, south, east and west.

The description of the study can be found at the link (N = 160)

Security:
Device called “the club”: does more harm than good?

Forensic science Yes, there are power line variations that can be detected. These provide a time signature that can be used to determine if recorded voices are authentic or have been added later!

More science
Here is an excellent summary of what we know about exo-planets, that is, planets that orbit other stars. Included in this post is the controversy over when scientists should release their raw data; is it really fair to expect them to expose their data thereby allowing other number crunchers to “scoop” them on findings?

Boxing: Who had great chins?

Interesting video; all are good choices. But one person on my list would be Muhammed Ali. He was knocked out once; that was in his next to last fight against Larry Holmes when Ali’s corner wisely put a stop to the carnage; Ali shouldn’t have been in the ring at all by that stage in his life. To his credit, Holmes put it on cruise control when it became clear that Ali was no threat to him.

Watch Round 11 of Ali Frazier I here; most fighters would have been out cold.

Watch round 6 of Ali-Frazier III here:

Watch rounds 14 and 15 of Ali-Shavers here; Shavers was hurting him but watch Ali rally in the last 30 seconds of round 15

Celtics-Lakers 2010: Game Six…

Ok, I’ll say this upfront: I think that there will be a game 7, but I hope not.

Garnett starts the scoring off of a fast break off of a miss by Bryant 3…but Bryant ties it.
Ray Allen: nice stroke early. Fisher: nice flop early.

Sloppy pass; 9-6 Lakers. The Lakers are hustling all over the place. Nice lay up by Allen; pass by Rondo, 3 point play.

9-9 early. Allen buries a 3! 12-10, Celtics. Mr. Bryant: 12-12.

Ok, 14-12 Lakers, Rondo gets fouled but will probably miss both. Good, he wasn’t shooting. Bryant a difficult shot.

It is 18-12; sloppy pass by Pierce was intercepted.

Half way: Allen has 8, so does Bryant. All the Laker starters have scored. Only Allen, Rondo (2) and Garnett (2) for the Celtics.
But Ray Allen is 3-5; that is a good sign.

Perkins got hurt; that is a bad sign (defense, rebounding).
Bryant another ridiculous 3. 21-14.
23-16; good flop by Gasol and the referees bought it.
26-16 early; this one is a rout.
Ooops, Pierce breathed on Gasol…foul.

Bryant 11, Artest: 8. That is the bulk of the damage.

Sloppy pass by Pierce again. Gads, this is horrible.
Bad quarter; 28-18 Lakers. Lakers: 60 percent shooting, Celtics 40. 12 rebounds for the Lakers, only 5 for the Celtics; this has been a butt kicking.

Even their back ups are hitting; this one is over. 30-20.
The Lakers can’t miss; 32-20.

Horrible turnover by Robinson. Celtics are ice cold and not rebounding.
3 fouls on Wallace. Ugly.
The starters are back in, save Pierce who hasn’t played well as yet.

The onslaught continues unabated. No block out; 40-23. The Celtics look lethargic. Rebounds: 22-7.

Gads, even the Laker scrubs are hitting 3s…20 point lead.

29 points in the first half with 1:32 to go. This is absurd.
Celtics: shooting 34 percent. Will they get to 30? 51-31 Lakers at the half. 51 isn’t a ton of points, but the 31 is beyond horrible.
Rebounds: 30-13 Lakers. Gasol 8, Bryant 7, Odom 6. Any two of these guys together have more than the Celtic team.

Perkins is out (knee injury).

Only ONE Celtic besides Perkins, Allen and Pierce has made a field goal.
No offense. Bad passes.

They can’t even hit a lay-up.

The Celtics are playing harder. But right now, the Lakers are getting every roll; the Celtics zero.
But right now, the Celtics are in a position where they need every roll…and that means you are going to lose.

Still, the effort is better.
70-51. The Laker bench has 21. Celtic bench: 0. What a reversal.

Rondo bricks two free throws..what else is new. But the Celtics are hustling…and still missing shots. 73-51. Time to get the starters out, I think.

76-51 at the end of 3. Again, 76 is not a lot of points but 51 is pathetic. The Lakers don’t even need to score in the 4′th to win the game.
49.2 percent for the Lakers, but only 36.5 for the Celtics.

Oh well, this is total domination.

10 minutes to go, so Rondo is the only starter.

Now they put in Pierce and Allen with 6:30 to go; the announcer thinks that Doc Rivers is letting them try stuff for game 7.

Question: will the Celtics even get to 70 points? 89-67. Yes, 89 isn’t a lot of points. SIXTY SEVEN????

(photos from yahoo)