text:
I know it's not very politically-correct to say it, but I don't think we should be trying to save every species. The prevailing assumption today seems to be that mankind is causing every extinction on the planet and, as such, we should be working to save every species and variety of endangered animal. Even ignoring that fact that mankind is part of nature too, extinction is a natural process that was taking place long before we existed. It seems to me that a world where species DON'T go extinct (thanks to our efforts) would disrupt the natural processes of evolution. Our guilt complex could create a very unnatural world.
And for the record, I think Pandas are cute. But they're not exactly a hearty lot.
I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?
If we are then we should probably put a effort into saving them especially if they are essential to their habitats such as bats and what not. If we are no way related to why they are going extinct such as a natural disease or predator in the area, then let nature take its course.
I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?
There are other relevant and unanswerable questions, such as would they have gone extinct without our help. However, since we can't save them all, the MOST important question BY FAR is how important is this creature to the ecosystem upon which I depend. Everything else is just moral masturbation.
You know, you're not very important to the ecosystem upon which I depend.
It's true, individually I could disappear today and someone else would come along to explain these simple concepts to you tomorrow.
> Everything else is just moral masturbation.
Perhaps, but some of us think morality should influence policy decisions, our decisions, or the decisions of institutions that study endangered animals.
Nobody I've ever met--and nobody I would ever trust--advocates for absolute amorality. Open-mindedness, yes. Largely scientific decision-making processes, sure. But at the end of the day, one should not discount the morality of acts simply because they don't contribute to your own survival. If someone rapes
I know what you mean.
Though I haven't taken to your particular example of legitimizing rape, I have been tempted to believe some other offensive things in the process of treating morality as an emotion to be passed over in favor of "logical self-interest", which may or may not coincide with common moral conceptions. (However, I am still quite willing to consider a different moral angle on moral issues such as environmental protection.)
I think there can be a lot of interesting argument where morality and rationality intersect. It can depend largely upon how you interpret morality.
Using your example of rape. If some random stranger is raped, immediately I may not care. But the person who raped the original victim could then go on to rape my sister, or someone else could see that rape has no consequences and rape my sister. The emotion impact would then mean that I would have to support my sister, or that she would be unable to support me. Preventing the original rape then becomes a matter of self interest.
Referring to endangered animals: we can probably agree that preventing animals from going extinct is a largely moral goal, and saving more animals is even more moral. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited resources to save every animal there is, so directing some of our resources toward and animal that may have little to no chance of surviving anyway would reduce the available resources for other animals, potentially leading to them becoming extinct - an immoral action.
I think a lot of this comes from humans evolution as social animals, moral actions help the whole group of people, and largely serve the purposes of the individual. People often bag on religion as deciding the moral code, but atheist morality puts a lot of this stuff in terms of helping other people, which will eventually serve your own interest.
There are other relevant and unanswerable questions, such as would they have gone extinct without our help.
100% of all living things will go extinct, without question.
100% of all living things will go extinct, without question./blockquote
100% of every statement that precedes the phrase "without question" should be questioned. Without question.
I'll buy the "especially if they are essential" line partially. I say partially because if these species are nearly extinct and their ecosystem hasn't been destroyed then we really should question how essential they are.
Otherwise, I must ask you one thing. Why exactly should we put forth an effort? Because it feels good? Are we unnatural? I've seen a lot of claims like yours, but they never say why other than appeals to what feels right to an individual.
"I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?"
I think you're placing too high a value on the answer to that question.
Humans are a predator. Humans, like other animals, can and do push out other animals in an area.
I for one do not think it's a bad thing that many life forms have went (or are endanger of becoming) extinct due to human action. smallpox, for example. Or polio. And I'm quite happy I don't have mountain lions strolling do
I totally get the emotional reasonings why we want to save animals, however, attempting to look at it objectively, why is it considered natural when a cat or fox leads another animal to extinction, but when humans do the same it is unnatural? We are all just animals trying to survive and expand the population to help ensure long term success for our own species. The cats and foxes of the world are trying to use up every resource they possibly can, why is it wrong for humans to do the same?
Pandas are the perfect example of something not worth saving. There are many that suppose that pandas were on their way out as a species without our interference just because of the extreme inefficiency of their bodies. It takes an extreme amount of energy to process the bamboo it eats, not to mention the birth problems it faces with low birth rates and high infant mortality. The only reason we have rallied behind pandas is because they're cute, and maybe there is some benefit to having a cute staple animal we've saved as a rallying cry for conservation, but I'd like to think there were easier options out there.
I used to joke that Koalas evolved their cuteness as a survival mechanism. They're so cute that humans take them out of their hostile natural environment and put them in nice safe zoos, where all they have to do is sleep all day and occasionally make cute for the crowds. It's a kind of symbiotic relationship where being attractive really pays off (kind of like Hollywood).
The standing joke among scientists in the field is that there are three modern-day evolutions that determine whether a creature will survive the next two centuries.
#1 - Lives in an environment humans can't survive in long enough to colonize (deep sea, extremely high mountain, antarctic)
#2 - Looks "extremely cute" by human standards such that either humans will feed them, or humans will not get pissed off when they break into the garbage looking for food (raccoons, foxes, pigeons, etc)
#3 - Small enough and n
The standing joke among scientists in the field is that there are three modern-day evolutions that determine whether a creature will survive the next two centuries.
#1 - Lives in an environment humans can't survive in long enough to colonize (deep sea, extremely high mountain, antarctic)
#2 - Looks "extremely cute" by human standards such that either humans will feed them, or humans will not get pissed off when they break into the garbage looking for food (raccoons, foxes, pigeons, etc)
#3 - Small enough and numerous enough that they are just not fucking going to go away because we don't notice them until they are present in EXTREMELY high numbers. Roaches, ants, mice/rats, etc.
#4 Is it tasty and if so, can it be bred in captivity easily.
Pandas are the perfect example of something not worth saving.
Pandas are of huge cultural significance to China. The effort required to save them is clearly worth it to the Chinese. If death by natural causes is your only meter stick for intervention, then should be not send foreign aid? After all most of these people in droughts, earthquakes, mudslides, floods etc are dying of natural causes. Should leave them to die in peace as well?
Pandas are the perfect example of something we should save. The low breeding ratio for pandas is an evolutionary trait that's beneficial in its natural environment. A panda is a giant cow with teeth and claws. It has no natural predators once it reaches adult size. If pandas were to breed on the level of rabbits it would destroy the plant ecosystem in Asia. The truth is if it were not for deforestation by humans, the pandas would be prolific. We need to balance our effect on the environment.
Examples of animals not worth saving would be the endangered freshwater mollusk colony in north Florida that was at risk due to low water levels caused by prolonged drought.
Not to mention that the most important thing that will save pandas-- habitat preservation-- is the very thing that will protect many other species, as well as serving a positive benefit to humans (habitat provides a carbon sink, erosion and flood prevention, groundwater filtration, etc. or even just as land reserved for future generations to exploit). Protecting pandas has a lot of positive collateral effects.
No, not really. A cow would actually have the digestive tract that can break down cellulose walls and extract a lot more nutrient from that bamboo. A panda is more like an overgrown carnivore, with a carnivore digestive tract, which eats bamboo, and shits most of it undigested.
It gets extremely little protein or energy per pound eaten, and in fact ridiculously so. It has to spend most of its day eating, and avoid moving too much or too fast, or it will literally starve to death. It can't even walk up more than very gentle slopes, because it just doesn't have the energy budget for that. Chasing prey or running away from a predator is right out.
Even the low reproduction rate may well have to do with just not having the energy or protein to produce or feed larger litters. It has nothing to do with some clever design that protects the environment (there isn't any conceivable evolutionary pressure that takes that into account), but simply with the fact that it's so piss-poor at feeding itself, that it just can't do more than a cub in a blue moon.
Truth is, it's not very fit, in the survival of the fittest sense, and it doesn't have an isolated niche like the animals in Australia had. I mean, it is isolated by mountains and deserts, which posed a barrier to other species coming in, but it's not nearly as insurmountable as thousands of miles of ocean are. In the wild, it would be only a matter of time before some predator evolves or manages to get over the mountains to fill the niche of feeding on all those juicy pandas, or some bigger herbivore comes to out-compete them.
It's also a very new species, at evolution scales. The earliest thing even remotely recognizable as a panda lived some three million years ago (though the intermediate links evolving in that direction are, obviously, older.) By way of comparison, our split between us and chimps is 6 million years ago.
It's too early to say it would be such a viable species without us.
And either way, it was a piss-poor species which existed there just by virtue of being isolated from either predators or prey or competing species. It's a carnivore who had to start eating bamboo just for lack of prey, never got any good at it, and survived in that niche only for lack of competition. In a sense, it was already living in a natural zoo, and it would become extinct within decades of those barriers around it failing in any way.
True. The problem is that his metric is wrong. The easiest way to deal with a pesky endangered animal that is blocking your development has now become to actually kill it even more. Once it goes below the specified threshold, it's put on the not-worth-saving list, and you can merrily go on developing.
The proper metric is how important a particular species is to its local environment. Think keystone species like Krill, wolves, Killer Whales or Tuna. The problem is that this is difficult - how do you measure importance? How do you know you measured something right, or at all? The response to this is that of caution: if we don't know which ones to save, we'll try to save as many as we can, and hope we pick right.
Think keystone species like Krill, wolves, Killer Whales or Tuna.
Krill are especially important - We all know what happens once they go extinct. We gotta get protein for our soylent green from somewhere.
Fry: It's made out of people!
Leela: No, there's already a drink for that—Soylent Cola.
Fry: Oh. How's it taste?
Leela: It varies from person to person.
The problem is that the rate of decline at this point has rarely if ever been seen before. The argument you're making there is one which isn't based upon any actual scientific evidence or theory. The problem is that it's unusual for an animal to go extinct without there being repercussions along the food chain. In the past when it was happening naturally, it wasn't that big of a deal because the rate of change was sufficiently slow that things would evolve to fill the hole.
These days though, it's happening
I wouldn't worry too much about the planet. the planet will do just fine.
check the earth out in a million years and there will be just as much diversity if not more.
we might make it uninhapitable for us for a while though.
Anyone know if there's any concerted effort being made to collect genetic samples from endangered animals right now?
200 years down the line if we had lots of really high quality cell samples from some of the stuff we're killing off now we might be able to bring some of them back.
The prevailing assumption today seems to be that mankind is causing every extinction on the planet and, as such, we should be working to save every species and variety of endangered animal
If we had the attitude of Mr. Cook in the U.S., it would save loads of tax dollars and businesses wouldn't have to move or cancel expansion plans nearly as often. It's like programs that help save lives. If one costs $10,000 per life saved, and another costs $500,000 per life saved, clearly we should forgo the latter and concentrate on the former. Unfortunately, people are too sympathetic for logic to take over.
I never really thought of it that way. You may bring up an interesting dichotomy: My general impression is that most most animal preservation activists tend to be evolutionists, even though evolutionists should believe that extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary cycle. On the other hand, religionists tend to believe that we should do our best to preserve every creature the deity created, but my impression is they tend to have more lax environmental policy.
I'm not suggesting causal relationships
My impression is that in the US, the correlations are mostly there because of political parties. There's no logical reason most of them should be there. There are also some correlations due to education and its ties to liberalism and cute fuzzy animals on the one hand, and correlations between business success and lack-of-english-majory-thoughts (The why vs. the how) or cute-fuzzy-animals on the other.
Indeed, it's OK to let things go extinct, at as far as the populations in the wild go, but the determination ought to be whether it's our fault or natural, not whether or not its cost effective. We're unlikely to know the cost of letting a species go extinct until it's gone. Beyond that though, this is like climate change in that the sooner you start to deal with the problem the less costly and the simpler the fix is.
it's OK to let things go extinct
By that logic, it's OK to let bananas go extinct, yet companies are pumping quite a lot of cash into saving them.
I don't see a problem there. Just because it's OK to let them go extinct doesn't necessarily mean that it's optimal to do so. Technically though, you're referring to a particular type of banana with no genetic variation and a complete inability to reproduce itself. The bananas that most of us know as bananas are in essence already extinct, they just haven't yet disappeared.
And... so what *should* be base these decisions on? You do not have infinite time and resources. The world does not work that way.
Cost/benefit is not a uniquely human attribute. When a big cat is hunting, it performs cost/benefit analysis on whether it's pray is worth chasing - based on the energy required to chase it down (cost) vs the amount of energy to be gained by eating it (benefit).
All animals do this, more or less.
It seems to me that a world where species DON'T go extinct (thanks to our efforts) would disrupt the natural processes of evolution. Our guilt complex could create a very unnatural world.
What's so great about evolution or living in a natural world? Like gravity, evolution merely is. Are you suggesting it's some kind of ideal to strive for or preserve?
Everything comes down to the question: What do you want? Unless you happen to like like catching smallpox, starving, falling down and skinning your knee, or sleeping in the rain -- or yes, if you like losing species whose DNA codes potentially useful proteins or species that are just plain pleasingly cute -- mother nature doesn't "want" what you want. I'm not saying be either her friend or her foe; I'm saying it's silly to want to respect her "wishes." She doesn't respect your wishes. That bitch is cold.
Fuck evolution. Evolution is something you need to understand and perhaps use, but it's not something to love.
Not that I disagree with you at all that we can't or shouldn't expend the effort to save every species. But damn, using "it's a natural process" as a reason for deciding a certain way -- ICK!
Thank goodness I'm not the only one who balked at GP's post. Seems like everyone around here treats evolution (at least, in the sense of mass extinction) as some sort of moral imperative.
I have the sense that an "appeal to nature" in ethics is the lowest form of logical fallacy. One cannot derive "what should be" from "what is."
Can I propose the arbuscular mychorrhizal fungi for protection? Not sure what it is, but it was the first thing to pop up when I typed 'endangered microorganism' in Google.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/cx815t3578004x20/ [springerlink.com]
-- New business idea: endangered species marketing strategy consultant
YES!!! Mycorrhizal fungi are absolutely essential for the continued existence of all plant-based ecosystems!!
Professor Corey Bradshaw was assassinated by PETA agents for daring to imply that any animal was less important than any human. Their press release states that any other scientists that dare to put the survival of the hated human race above the that of the least important member of the animal kingdom would be similarly put to death.
Citation needed? Google and Google News aren't turning up anything like that, or even an indication that he's dead.
The best way forward is to preserve habitats, not species. Then you don't have to choose for induvidual species...
All habitats are not equal anyway (just listen to any nature documentary about a coral reef). We don't have trouble saying some are more pretty/valuable than others.
At one point, the Smallpox variola virus was almost completely wiped out, surviving only in a few laboratories around the world.
Now, thanks to the efforts of some people who were able to free some of those remaining captive virus, it may someday be possible to reintroduce them into the wild, allowing them to once again freely complete in nature.
Won't that be nice? Another endangered species brought back from the brink of extinction.
My germs!
My precious germs!
They never harmed a soul!
They never had the chance!
Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's like there being someone who will need 3 docs operating on him while 3 patients die... but, unbeknown to the doctors, that 3-doc patient holds the life of 60 others in his grasp.
We know precious little about how ecosystems are interconnected. It could well be that a certain species we allow to go extinct is the exclusive prey of another one. Or that their dung is needed for certain beetles to survive (which in turn are required by some flowers to get pollenized or wh
I'll bet there would be a lot more hairy-nosed wombats in the ecosystem if I could have one for breakfast.
Because being edible totally saved the passenger pigeon.
I hope the seminal work of Karl Pilkington [pilkipedia.co.uk] is getting the attention it deserves in this field.
And since we know every possible effect the existence (or extinction) of an animal has to the ecosystem, we can sensibly make that list in the first place.
In the scheme of "worth saving" where do humans fit in? You know since we cause all the problems.
California Condor, Buffalo, etc. Scientists, letting their "faith" get in the way of good science.
The population of whooping cranes got as low as 20. With lots of effort and publicity, 45 years later there are now about 400. If we followed the judgement of this joker, there'd be no whoopers now. Professor Corey Bradshaw? HAH! More like Professor Irwin Corey.
Yes, some economic judgement has to be applied to saving species, but the crucial thing is to use good judgement.
Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates.


text:
The explosives that killed three and wounded more than 170 at the Boston Marathon were made of pressure cookers packed with metal and ball bearings, a person briefed on the investigation said Tuesday. President Barack Obama said it was unclear whether the bombings were carried out by an international organization, domestic group or a "malevolent individual."
Obama, speaking to reporters at the White House, said authorities still don't know who is responsible and officials said no one had claimed responsibility. He called the bombing "a heinous and cowardly act" used to target innocent civilians.
The chief FBI agent in Boston vowed "we will go to the ends of the Earth" to find whoever carried out the deadly attack on one of the city's most famous civic holidays, Patriots Day.
A person briefed on the attack, which left the streets splattered with blood and glass, said the explosives were in 6-liter pressure cookers and placed in black duffel bags that were placed on the ground. The person said the duffel bags contained shards of metal, nails and ball bearings. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.
These types of pressure cooker explosives have been used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to a July 2010 joint FBI and Homeland Security intelligence report. One of the three devices used in the May 2010 Times Square attempted bombing was a pressure cooker, the intelligence report said.
"Placed carefully, such devices provide little or no indication of an impending attack," the report said.
The Pakistani Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the 2010 attempt in Times Square, has denied any role in the Boston Marathon attack.
Richard DesLauriers, FBI agent in charge in Boston, said earlier that investigators had received "voluminous tips" and were interviewing witnesses and were analyzing the crime scene.
A European security official said Tuesday initial evidence indicates that the attacks were not the work of suicide bombers.
"So far, investigators believe it was not the work of suicide bombers, but it is still too early to rule it out completely," said the official, who spoke from the United States on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the U.S. investigation.
The Pakistani Taliban, which has threatened attacks in the United States because of its support for the Pakistani government, on Tuesday denied any role in the marathon bombings.
LIVE video from CBS News
The fiery explosions took place about 10 seconds and about 100 yards (90 meters) apart, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending dense plumes of smoke rising over the street and through the fluttering national flags lining the route.
Blood stained the pavement, and huge shards were missing from window panes as high as three stories. Victims suffered broken bones, shrapnel wounds and ruptured eardrums.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the bombing a "cruel act of terror." He said that any event with explosive devices is clearly an act of terror and he promised that a thorough investigation will determine whether the perpetrators were foreign or domestic. The Pentagon chief vowed that those responsible will be brought to justice.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said Tuesday no unexploded bombs were found at the marathon site. He said the only explosives were the ones that went off Monday.
Boston police and firefighter unions announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to arrests in the bombing.
Roupen Bastajian, a state trooper from Smithfield, Rhode Island, had just finished the race when he heard the explosions.
"I started running toward the blast. And there were people all over the floor," he said. "We started grabbing tourniquets and started tying legs. A lot of people amputated."
At Massachusetts General Hospital, Alasdair Conn, chief of emergency services, said: "This is something I've never seen in my 25 years here ... this amount of carnage in the civilian population. This is what we expect from war."
WBZ-TV reported late Monday that law enforcement officers were searching an apartment in the Boston suburb of Revere. Massachusetts State Police confirmed that a search warrant related to the investigation into the explosions was served Monday night in Revere, but provided no further details.
Some investigators were seen leaving the Revere house early Tuesday carrying brown paper bags, plastic trash bags and a duffel bag.
But Dr. Stephen Epstein of the emergency medicine department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said he saw an X-ray of one victim's leg that had "what appears to be small, uniform, round objects throughout it - similar in the appearance to BBs." He said it remained to be determined what exactly the objects were.
Other doctors said they removed a host of sharp objects from the victims, including nails that were sticking out of one little girl's body.
Police said three people were killed. Eight-year-old Martin Richard was among the dead, according to a person who talked to a friend of the family and spoke on condition of anonymity. The person said the boy's mother and sister were also injured.
On Tuesday, police identified the second victim as Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant manager. The third victim remained unidentified.
Police commissioner Ed Davis said 176 victims were brought to hospitals around Boston, and 17 were in critical condition. At least eight children were being treated at hospitals.
Tim Davey of Richmond, Virginia, was with his wife, Lisa, and children near a medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners when the injured began arriving. "They just started bringing people in with no limbs," he said.
"Most everybody was conscious," Lisa Davey said. "They were very dazed."
The Boston Marathon is one of the world's oldest and most prestigious races and about 23,000 runners participated. The race honored the victims of the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting with a special mile marker in Monday's race.
Boston Athletic Association president Joanne Flaminio previously said there was "special significance" to the fact that the race is 26.2 miles long and 26 people died at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
One of the city's biggest annual events, the race winds up near Copley Square, not far from the landmark Prudential Center and the Boston Public Library. It is held on Patriots Day, which commemorates the first battles of the American Revolution, at Concord and Lexington in 1775.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis asked people to stay indoors or go back to their hotel rooms and avoid crowds as bomb squads methodically checked parcels and bags left along the race route. He said investigators didn't know whether the bombs were hidden in mailboxes or trash cans.
He said authorities had received "no specific intelligence that anything was going to happen" at the race.
The Federal Aviation Administration barred low-flying aircraft within 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) of the site.
"We still don't know who did this or why," Obama said at the White House, adding, "Make no mistake: We will get to the bottom of this."
With scant official information to guide them, members of Congress said there was little or no doubt it was an act of terrorism.
"We just don't know whether it's foreign or domestic," said Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
A few miles away from the finish line and around the same time, a fire broke out at the John F. Kennedy Library. The police commissioner said that it may have been caused by an incendiary device but that it was not clear whether it was related to the bombings.
The first explosion occurred on the north side of Boylston Street, just before the finish line, and some people initially thought it was a celebratory cannon blast.
When the second bomb went off, spectators' cheers turned to screams. As sirens blared, emergency workers and National Guardsmen who had been assigned to the race for crowd control began climbing over and tearing down temporary fences to get to the blast site.
The bombings occurred about four hours into the race and two hours after the men's winner crossed the finish line. By that point, more than 17,000 of the athletes had finished the marathon, but thousands more were still running.
The attack may have been timed for maximum carnage: The four-hour mark is typically a crowded time near the finish line because of the slow-but-steady recreational runners completing the race and because of all the friends and relatives clustered around to cheer them on.
Runners in the medical tent for treatment of dehydration or other race-related ills were pushed out to make room for victims of the bombing.
LIVE Coverage from Boston - Video controlled by CBS Boston
CBS Boston Live Stream

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Ravens are surrendering 35 yards per kickoff return and 10.5 per punt return, compared with 23.7 and 4.6 for the Steelers. Brown, Pittsburgh's primary returner, is fifth in the NFL in kickoff-return average (28.9) and seventh in punt-return average (12.1). The Ravens have the edge with their kicking tandem as Sam Koch (above left) is averaging 46.8 yards per punt and has put 11 of his 20 punts inside the 20-yard line, and kicker Billy Cundiff (above right) is 17-for-20 on field-goal tries. All three of Cundiff's misses have come from 50-plus yards. The Steelers' Shaun Suisham is 13-for-18 on field-goal attempts. The Steelers placed punter Daniel Sepulveda on season-ending injured reserve Saturday; he'll be replaced by Jeremy Kapinos. David Reed was the Ravens' primary kick returner against Arizona, but Lardarius Webb is also an option. EDGE: RAVENS
Reuters photo
Copyright © 2018, CT Now


text:
Sexual abuse is reprehensible, especially when it involves children, and no one starting with Joe Paterno condones or minimizes it. The horrific acts committed by Jerry Sandusky shock the conscience of every decent human being. How Sandusky was able to get away with his crimes for so long has yet to be fully understood, despite the claims and assertions of the Freeh report.
The release of the Freeh report has triggered an avalanche of vitriol, condemnation and posthumous punishment on Joe Paterno. The NCAA has now become the latest party to accept the report as the final word on the Sandusky scandal. The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best.
That the President, the Athletic Director and the Board of Trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities and a breach of their fiduciary duties to the University and the 500,000 alumni. Punishing past, present and future students of the University because of Sandusky's crimes does not serve justice. This is not a fair or thoughtful action; it is a panicked response to the public's understandable revulsion at what Sandusky did.
The point of due process is to protect against this sort of reflexive action. Joe Paterno was never interviewed by the University or the Freeh Group. His counsel has not been able to interview key witnesses as they are represented by counsel related to ongoing litigation. We have had no access to the records reviewed by the Freeh group. The NCAA never contacted our family or our legal counsel. And the fact that several parties have pending trials that could produce evidence and testimony relevant to this matter has been totally discounted.
Unfortunately all of these facts have been ignored by the NCAA, the Freeh Group and the University.
Today we receive a very harsh penalty from the NCAA and as Head Coach of the Nittany Lions football program, I will do everything in my power to not only comply, but help guide the University forward to become a national leader in ethics, compliance and operational excellence. I knew when I accepted the position that there would be tough times ahead. But I am committed for the long term to Penn State and our student athletes. I was then and I remain convinced that our student athletes are the best in the country. I could not be more proud to lead this team and these courageous and humble young men into the upcoming 2012 season. Together we are committed to building a better athletic program and university.
I was then and I remain convinced that our student athletes are the best in the country. I could not be more proud to lead this team and these courageous and humble young men into the upcoming 2012 season. Together we are committed to building a better athletic program and university.
The Freeh Report concluded that individuals at Penn State University entrusted to positions of authority, shunned their basic responsibility to protect children, and innocent children suffered as a result. Our hearts go out to the victims of this abuse and their families.
Today Penn State takes another step forward in changing the culture at the institution as we accept the penalties of the NCAA for the failure of leadership that occurred on our campus. We are deeply disappointed that some of our leaders could have turned a blind eye to such abuse, and agree that the culture at Penn State must change. As we move forward, today's student athletes have a challenging road ahead. But they will do the right thing, as they have always done. I am confident all of our head coaches will come together to make the change necessary to drive our university forward. Penn State will continue to fully support its established athletic programs, which provide opportunities for over 800 student athletes.
Working together, the path ahead will not be easy. But it is necessary, just, and will bring a better future. Our faculty, staff, students, athletes, and parents will work together as Penn State begins this new chapter. Though this cooperation and collaboration, Penn State will become a national model for compliance, ethics, and embodiment of the student athlete credo.
The tragedy of child sexual abuse that occurred at our University altered the lives of innocent children. Today, as every day, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims of Mr. Sandusky and all other victims of child abuse.
Against this backdrop, Penn State accepts the penalties and corrective actions announced today by the NCAA. With today's announcement and the action it requires of us, the University takes a significant step forward.
The NCAA ruling holds the University accountable for the failure of those in power to protect children and insists that all areas of the University community are held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity.
The NCAA also mandates that Penn State become a national leader to help victims of child sexual assault and to promote awareness across our nation. Specifically, the University will pay $12 million a year for the next five years into a special endowment created to fund programs for the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse. This total of $60 million can never reduce the pain suffered by victims, but will help provide them hope and healing.
The NCAA penalty will also affect the football program. There is a four-year ban on all post-season games, including bowl games and the Big Ten Championship game, and a future reduction in the number of football scholarships that can be granted. We are grateful that the current student athletes are not prevented from participation because of the failures of leadership that occurred. Additionally the NCAA has vacated all wins of Penn State football from 1998-2011.
We also welcome the Athletics Integrity Agreement and the third-party monitor, who will be drilling into compliance and culture issues in intercollegiate athletics, in conjunction with the recommendations of the Freeh Report. Lastly a probationary period of five years will be imposed.
It is important to know we are entering a new chapter at Penn State and making necessary changes. We must create a culture in which people are not afraid to speak up, management is not compartmentalized, all are expected to demonstrate the highest ethical standards, and the operating philosophy is open, collegial, and collaborative.
Since receiving Judge Freeh's preliminary recommendations in January, the University has instituted several reforms. Today we accept the terms of the consent decree imposed by the NCAA. As Penn State embarks upon change and progress, this announcement helps to further define our course. It is with this compass that we will strive for a better tomorrow.
Penn State will move forward with a renewed sense of commitment to excellence and integrity in all aspects of our University. We continue to recognize the important role that intercollegiate athletics provides for our student athletes and the wider University community as we strive to appropriately balance academic and athletic accomplishments. Penn State will continue to be a world-class educational institution of which our students, faculty, staff and alumni can be justifiably proud.


text:
A middle-aged man sexually assaulted a young woman who fell asleep in a Doncaster town centre takeaway, a court heard.
Daniel Mullan, aged 56, befriended the girl and chatted to her for 20 minutes while other customers initially thought they were together. They shared a pizza and others even began taking photos showing Mullan kneeling alongside her at the Silver Street takeaway.
But he was then seen to place his hand up the woman's skirt before he was challenged and left, said Abigail Langford, prosecuting, at Sheffield Crown Court.
The victim had been out for the evening with friends before going to the takeaway at 4am. She could recall little of the incident.
It appeared the girl had lost her bank card and gave it to Mullan but it was later recovered.
In a victim impact statement she said she felt 'dirty and violated' and wished she had stayed in that night.
Mullan, of Manor Road, Hatfield, admitted a charge of sexual assault.
Angela Wrottesley, defending, said he was normally a hard-working man and had never been in trouble before.
He was the sole breadwinner for his family and it was wholly out of character. He had already taken steps to address his drinking.
Judge Paul Watson, QC, told Mullan: "This, I accept was a wholly uncharacteristic action on your behalf but it was grossly offensive and has caused a considerable degree of upset to this young lady."
Mullan was given a nine-month community order with supervision and ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid community work. He was also told to pay £600 prosecution costs.


text:
Denver has historically been a pretty welcoming place for the Bruins since the move of the Quebec Nordiques to become the Colorado Avalanche.
Boston has won three of its last four on the road against the Avs. Today they'll look to duplicate what they accomplished the last time they visited the Mile High City, as they left town with a 5-4 win Oct. 9, 2008. The Saturday matinee starts at 3 p.m. EST.
The thin air of Denver shouldn't be an issue. Most of the players asked after yesterday's practice in Wilmington, Mass., said the key is to just not think about it and fight through it if it becomes an issue. Head coach Claude Julien and the Bruins brass had the team fly out yesterday afternoon rather than Thursday night in an effort to make this trip to Denver one of the shorter stop-overs of the season.
"What most people seem to think is that the less time that you're there, the easier it is to get accustomed to the thin air and I think we're taking that approach going there and playing [Saturday] and then moving on," said Julien, whose team will complete its mini Western road trip Monday in Los Angeles. "It's something that a lot of teams, whether it's football or hockey, have discovered. We're no different. We're trying to take advantage of the situation as we can."
The Bruins could take advantage of a shorthanded Avalanche team, which learned this week forward Tomas Fleischmann will be lost for the season with blood clots in his lungs. Sure, Peter Forsberg decided to start skating with his former team. But he won't be in the lineup, nor will he ever again be in the form that made him a Stanley Cup champion and future Hall-of-Famer.
Colorado is 13-9-3 on home ice this season. For comparison's sake, the Bruins are a 12-9-3 home team, and we all know how beatable Boston can be when on its own rink. So with a strong start and solid 60 minutes, the Bruins should be able to exploit the Avs and feel like they were never a mile high.


text:
When you adopt a new cat, be sure to ask for its health records. Then schedule a general checkup with a veterinarian to ensure your kitty has a clean bill of health.read more
Name: BRUCER
Age: 4
Breed: Tabby
Owner: Nathalie
Hometown: Las Vegas, NV
My Rescue Story:
"Brucer is the baby of our home. His personality makes me think he is something else. He never fails to amuse everybody who is around him! He sure knows how to act up to get what he wants! He brought more joy and laughter to my world!"
Cats reach full skeletal development when they are this old:


text:
My 7 month old son has been nursed to sleep from day one. When I went back to work, my husband was able to get our son to sleep by feeding him from the bottle, near the end he dozes off.
But with me, no matter how cranky he is, or over tired, he must be attached to sleep, but then... forget about putting him down in a swing or his crib, it just isn't happening.
I love my son to death, but there are things that I really should take care of so all of the home making and cleaning doesn't fall on my husband's shoulders.
Any advice to getting my baby to sleep without me having to hold him the entire nap?
Baby hacks needed.


text:
By Ben Levisohn
China will tighten rules for its so-called shadow-banking system, the Financial Times reports. Trina Solar (TSL) earnings fell–and missed analyst forecasts. China's Shanghai Composite stock index fell 1.4% today.
India's election-year budget might put unpopular financial reforms ahead of voters preferences, Reuters reported. India's Sensex stock index fell 1.6%.
South Korea's grocers threatened to boycott Japanese goods if it doesn't drop claims to disputed islands, while the Wall Street Journal reported that Google (GOOG) is worried about Samsung's (005930.Korea) Android smart phone dominance. South Korea's Kospi stock index fell 0.5%.
The yield on Taiwan's 10-year government bonds dropped the most in five months, Bloomberg reported, as Italy's election forced investors into safer assets. Taiwan's Taeix stock index fell 0.8%.
The Philippines imports rose 13.2% in December from the previous year. The Philippines Stock Exchange PSEi Index fell 1.35%.
Russia's government said that it would seek more representatives on its central-bank board, but that its independence is not at risk. Russia's Micex stock index has dropped 1.3% so far today.
South Africa's economy grew at a 2.1% clip during the fourth quarter of 2012, above economist forecasts for 1.7% growth. The FTSE/JSE Africa Top40 Tradeable Index fell 0.85%.
Brazil's consumer confidence fell in February, its fifth consecutive decline. Brazil's Bovespa stock index has dropped 0.3% in early trading this morning.


text:
A first time candidate for political office is expected to make a few mistakes in his campaign and I will be the first to admit that I have made some. Some are simple and even humorous, for example failing to order stands for yard signs.
One mistake I have made in the past couple of months is silence.
In my desire not to involve myself in disagreements between other candidates, I have kept my opinions to myself. As I look back, this lack of clarity has caused others to define who I am based on who they think I should be.
I have never before allowed others to define who I am or what I stand for, and I am disturbed that I have allowed this to happen now. Therefore, without making any comment about other council members, candidates, city employees or other residents of Sunnyside, I would like to end my silence and define who I am.
For the record, I am proud of our police department. If we compare the atmosphere in Sunnyside today with three years ago, the change is astounding. To accomplish so much in such a short period of time under the leadership of an acting police chief is remarkable.
Obviously, the police didn't accomplish this alone. While the police were targeting those who draw our young people into gangs and other illegal activity, the school district clamped down on gang affiliation within the schools. Most importantly, parents and extended family made it clear to their children that gangs are not an option.
While I admire the police department, it must also be said that I do not worship the ground they walk on. As in any organization, there is always room for improvement. When questions or concerns are voiced, it gives an opportunity to re-evaluate and make sure we are doing the best we can. If we are going to effectively serve our community we must constantly re-evaluate all departments in our city.
The important question in my mind is this; with crime down, what do we do with it? Do we place our crime statistics on a shelf or do we take advantage of them to continue positive change in our community? These questions tie into several areas; the police, our youth and our local economy.
First, the police. Aggressive tactics have led the way in the sharp reduction in violent crime. Now that the crime is down, do we continue using these tactics or do we change our approach?
I believe that aggressive tactics are very effective but for a limited time. Very soon they lead to resentment and hard feelings. It is time for our police department to move into the next phase, that of being more interactive with the community. People want to feel the police are their allies in living a secure life, this is not a police state after all. We must remain watchful, however. Crime will certainly spike again. Close analysis of crime will show our police where and when to briefly and aggressively target specific areas when necessary.
Second, our youth. Now that gangs are not able to target our young people as effectively as before, do we leave our youth to find their own way, hoping they make good choices? I don't think so. While the city cannot be expected to do everything, we can offer opportunities for our youth.
Our parks and rec programs, for example, offer valuable programs that teach skills like teamwork, fair play, cooperation, etc. The goal is to guide our children into a good and productive life. The city, working in partnership with parents and schools, can help make this a reality.
Finally, our economy. Lower crime rates supposedly make Sunnyside more attractive to businesses looking to invest in towns like ours. I have been told by people I trust that it is one thing to talk about bringing in new business and quite another to actually accomplish it.
As a small business owner, I also understand that attracting new business is risky. What if that new business includes a new competitor? These concerns are real, but if we truly want Sunnyside to be a good place to raise a family there must be access to the kind of jobs that pay enough to support a family. We, as a community, must quit believing the bad hype others tell us about our town and become shameless promoters of our community.
Throughout the past few years, I have had the privilege of being in charge of one of the houses to paint with Loving Sunnyside. Each time a group of Sunnyside High students has been part of my group. Every group has been silly and easily distracted. They have also been responsible, respectful and hard working. The adults at the site have always been glad they were there. Because this happens every time, I can only assume that I would see the same results by taking any random sample of students at Sunnyside High School. These are people I want to see returning to Sunnyside to raise their families. I'd like to see Sunnyside not only be among their choices, I would like Sunnyside to be their first choice.
I live in Sunnyside because I choose to, not because I have to. I bought a house and run a small business in Sunnyside because I believe it is worth the investment of my time and efforts. There are more good things about our community than bad, although the bad catches our attention. We have great people, great location, great schools, amazing climate. We are also 25 years ahead of most small communities in America in learning how to live together as a multi ethnic community.
There is much more but time and space don't allow for it. Therefore, please vote. But vote for the candidate, not according to the gossip or which newsletter their name appeared in or where you see the yard signs, but for who they are and what they will do for our community.
‑ Dean Broersma is seeking election to the District 2 Sunnyside City Council seat he was appointed to earlier this year.
Comments are subject to moderator review and may not appear immediately on the site.
Please read our commenting policy before posting.
Any comment violating the site's commenting guidelines will be removed and the user could be banned from the site.
Very well put Mr. Broersma. City Council is lucky to have a stand-up individual such as you. I'm sure you will never please everyone yet I'm positive your values and faith will guide you in your course of action to make the tough calls to make Sunnyside a better place to live in "a multi ethnic community".
Very well stated Councilman Broersma!!! You are the person I have always known you to be, fair, honest and hard working. Sunnyside is very fortunate to have you on council.


text:
The reason might be that noone read the Wikipedia articles. Once they have linked to them causing people to actually visit it, they were quickly debunked.
Exactly. If you create articles on obscure regional murder victims, then the chances are the articles won't be read.
If you then draw lots of attention to it, then you're more likely to get found out.
Yup. Trying to convince someone that there was an obscure serial killer who lived and died 100 years ago is a lot different than trying to convince people that, say, a leading national figure is Muslim. However, the latter can also work because it's helped along by the "big lie" effect.
trying to convince people that, say, a leading national figure is Muslim. However, the latter can also work because it's helped along by the "big lie" effect.
That lie (like many lies) was helped by two things:
1. The trust that viewers/readers place in the personalities/authors that were talking about the issue.
2. Repetition. If you keep repeating a lie, it'll stick with some people, no matter how outlandish it is.
These hoaxers had no resevoir of trust already built up with the community they were trying to deceive
AND they had no real opportunity to repeat the lie in a way that would invade the common consciousness.
Don't forget 3: It plays to a LOT of prejudices of the target audience - a black Democrat as president - the core audience for the lie was probably looking for anything that would justify it not being so...
Yeah but they did the same to Clinton as well, as he's as white as a sheet. They just don't like Democrats. Period.
Don't forget 3: It plays to a LOT of prejudices of the target audience - a black Democrat as president - the core audience for the lie was probably looking for anything that would justify it not being so...
I'll be more blunt than you were. They call him a Muslim because i's the next best thing to calling him a Nigger, which they know they can't get away with.
I'd say the bigger problem was 4.-If you ACT guilty then folks will think you are. look at how long he stalled and BSed when he could have just had some copies of his birth cert printed that week and ended the whole damned thing right there. Frankly I'm starting to wonder if someone in his camp isn't trolling for the LULZ. I mean you put out a long form doc on the White House website that has obvious layers and fakeries in it? smells like trolling to me, like they WANT that shit to be the talk instead of...
That lie (like many lies) was helped by two things:
1. The trust that viewers/readers place in the personalities/authors that were talking about the issue.
2. Repetition. If you keep repeating a lie, it'll stick with some people, no matter how outlandish it is.
You missed a very big 3rd one: confirmation bias. Listeners who have negative feelings about Group G and Person P to start with are quite likely to uncritically accept an accusation that P is secretly affiliated with G.
(Like your two factors, this also
People did read the Wikipedia articles, though - they were there as part of a broader campaign by the students to create a viral hoax about the past that would spread.
People did read the Wikipedia articles, though
[who?][weasel words][citation needed]
[citation needed]
It is true. I made a ridiculous looking wikipedia article back in 2006 while making a scavenger hunt for my girlfriend. For more than six years that article has sat there, even though it references fake people, fake companies and fake quotes. It has even been cleaned up a little by others over the years.
The worst it got is a 'this article may contain original research' tag. I'm sure if it had widespread exposure someone would realize it is completely fake. But articles on wikipedia just don't get exposure.
is that people (possibly wrongly) believe what they read on wikipedia, but nobody believes fucking anything they read on reddit! the rest follows from there.
This actually seems like a pretty plausible analysis. Reddit's culture of liars and attention whores is naturally going to make it a much worse venue for this kind of thing.
is that people (possibly wrongly) believe what they read on wikipedia, but nobody believes fucking anything they read on reddit! the rest follows from there.
You make a good point. Next time I want to know what the atomic number of lithium is, I am going to check Reddit given their penchant for hard hitting fact finding.
I don't believe anything I read on reddit or slashdot. Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinit
stack overflow
I don't believe anything I read on reddit or slashdot. Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinite loop? Does that mean I'm suck in an infinit
stack overflow
Boy, have you got a short stack...
Not as short as your bus, Oscar.
stack overflow
Sorry, that's a different site.
Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of politiciansI have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.
I'm quite sure Hoover wasn't a 100% honest individual himself.
Then again, although all criminals are not politicians, we all know all politicians are criminals. I'd much rather keep what little anonymity I have on the net and decided myself whom to believe rather than trust the criminals that make laws to ensure the people I'm talk to are being honest.
I'm not sure it would be very far off if we changes "politicians" in your statement with "law enforcement officers." (I actually had a retired cop try to justify to me why marked cars should be able to speed down public roads with neither lights nor sirens going despite admitting it wasn't legal. If I were in an interrogation room, I doubt I'd get even that much honesty.)
Further proof that we need the government to assure all of our online identities and stop those that would deceive us!
Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.
J. Edgar Hoover
Would it be inappropriate to say "It takes one to know one?"
It is a quote from Louis Armstrong, the first man on the moon.
Just check wikipedia if you don't believe me.
Or check http://xkcd.com/202/ [xkcd.com]
There is certainly now a disinclination to do anything to improve Wikipedia, largely brought on by the obsessives who make up the "extremely active editors". You can barely mention the most obvious facts without being accused either of advertising or original research. The casual multitudes that made the site what it is just get put off.
So true. I started creating a new article about a local lake and it was deleted at some point between my first and 3rd save for being a useless stub or something. Have not contributed since and I started 50+ pages and who knows how many edits.
I really find this annoying because to me it shows a fallacy of thinking.
Why should you *not* show skepticism of other types of writing? Just because it's printed by some corporate major publisher is not a guarantee that the material is correct. You're putting a lot of faith in "professional" editors that also might not be fact checking or promoting a bias (Ann Coulter's publisher comes to mind here).
You should be skeptical of writing on the internet, but should be just skeptical of everything else. Everyone is human, everyone has bias, everyone has an agenda, everyone screws up.
Wish I could mod you to infinity. Britannica for generations portrayed itself as objective because it hired subject matter experts to write its articles. But anyone in any given field knows that there is no one "objective" individual capable of writing a truly neutral article. People should have a healthy skepticism of *any* source, no matter how authoritative they portray themselves as.
At some point, you're going to have to trust someone, unless you want to spend years researching all the chemical properties of molybdenum yourself. So we set up tiers of trust, which generally is determined by the amount of review, the expertise of the review, and how many times that review(s) have been wrong before. Of course, once you get into the social sciences, then you have to deal with the biases (as you said), plus competing models of thought (psychology), vague facts (history), processes (politi
(Ann Coulter's publisher comes to mind here)
I would include them in the mix, but I certainly wouldn't exclude other media outlets. Sometimes for fun I read through a half dozen or so Google links to the same news article, their bias jumps out at you. Fox, NY Times, LA Times, Al Jazeera, Asian Times, BBC, CNN
I have to agree with Jimmy Wales on this - this is experiment is just as "insightful" as demonstrating to people that you can get away with vandalism.
Yes, it's not that difficult to troll Wikipedia. Just as it's not that difficult to scam old people, dump your trash in the forest, or scratch cars in a parking lot. You would most likely get away with it, but it does not mean that there is a huge security risk in parking lots that the world needs to be made aware of.
Society is based on the fact that most of the time, most people are not assholes, and therefore we don't need a policeman following everyone at all times. People don't troll or vandalise because they see it as the wrong thing to do - and the small risk of getting caught, and humiliated or punished is sufficient to discourage the less ethical ones.
Society worked in the most part 100 years ago because everyone knew that (a) everyone was watching and (b) people cared about their environment. So if someone yelled "Stop thief!" a lot of people in the area would pay attention and grab the thief.
The Kitty Genovese case was the announcement to the world of that sort of community involvement had ended. It had been coming for a while, but that was really the big thing that people could point to. You might not remember this, but it was where a young woman was screaming she was being stabbed for something like a half an hour before finally succumbing to her wounds. Nobody came to help or even called the police.
Today it is clear that nobody cares. They have their own lives to live and if someone wants to dump trash in a public part, so what? If one person is killing another, people walk by thinking "glad is not me" without a thought that it easily could be. In some ways it is true that most of the time most people aren't assholes. But the tendancy towards unthinkingly unkind behavior is increased when people are sure nobody is watching - hence while many will not shoplift almost everyone will pirate stuff in the privacy of their home rather than pay.
The Internet isn't helping out much here, as people hide behind pseudo-identities and handles. This means the co-worker you are trusting at work may be the asshat that is screwing with your daughter's head on the Internet. You just don't know and if done properly will never know. And the co-worker may be a great buddy in public where people can see but on the Internet feels immune and invulnerable.
Since the 1960s we have seen a great lessening of social involvement. People don't care what their neighbors are doing as long as they don't bother them with it. People will walk by panhandlers on the street - which is a good thing - but also just walk by someone injured. Women are taught from birth that if someone wants to help them they probably have an agenda that isn't good. While in 1920 Officer Friendly was the neighborhood cop today we know that cops are there to sodomize powerless people with broomsticks and do whatever it takes to get their quota of tickets, and again, nobody is watching, nobody cares and nobody is going to do anything.
The risk of getting caught is almost non-existent today. If you chase down the statistics you find that major crimes - like armed robbery - have at best a 10-20% chance of resulting in jail time. Murder is a little better, rape is a little worse. The odds are definitely in favor of the criminal and they know it. Now, on the street it works out because after 5 to 10 such crimes they certainly do end up getting caught, convicted and jailed just because the percentages work that way. But it really sucks to be told that your rapist will certainly go free this time but will be caught eventually.
Do not believe for a second that "society" is watching your back today. Your community doesn't care and isn't interested in your problems or difficulties. You might have a few friends that do, but not the community at large. And because of this each one of us is less safe and less secure. No, I don't have the answer to this because I'd say it is the result of population, immigration and just population density itself. But it is not 1950 and June Cleaver isn't interested in what your children are doing any more.
This reminds me, don't self-defense classes teach women not to yell "help," or "rape," but something kind of odd instead? Like "I'm on fire," or "I lost my dog"? Something that would provoke a response to helping a single person, rather than get entangled into some sort of conflict? Wish I could remember what it was (I can't find any definitive answers), because I'd like to look it up to see if there were any stats on its effectiveness.
As for your de-sensitization towards others, yeah, sadly it seems tha
The Kitty Genovese case was the announcement to the world of that sort of community involvement had ended. It had been coming for a while, but that was really the big thing that people could point to. You might not remember this, but it was where a young woman was screaming she was being stabbed for something like a half an hour before finally succumbing to her wounds. Nobody came to help or even called the police.
But the other side of the Kitty Genovese case [onthemedia.org] is that the media constructed a narrative -- "38 people watched and did nothing" -- that demonstrably wasn't based in fact. There were maybe 2-3 people who (probably) knowingly ignored it, and at least one who tried to help. Most of them had no idea of what was going on.
It's worth thinking about why the story became what it did. From the media's point of view, mayhem sells -- "if it bleeds, it leads" -- and a ghastly, horrifying story is made all the more attractive when you add the "38 witnesses" angle. From a political point of view, there are certain...advantages...to making people feel fearful, cynical, and isolated. When you combine that with the right mix of anger and indignation, it can be very useful indeed.
Maybe if you believe no one cares, it's partly because the people who control the narrative want you to believe that no one cares.
Yes, it's not that difficult to troll Wikipedia.
Which is exactly the point of the exercise. From the earliest days, Wikipedia bragged about how hard it was going to be to troll Wikipedia. How bad articles and bad edits would be detected and corrected within hours, if not minutes. How the structure and community of Wikipedia was robust and resilient.
However, as it has turned out, this is not the case. And most of the replies so far are doing everything they can to avoid discussing this elephant i
Wikipedia manages to avoid bad edits by reverting the vast majority of them, immediately, regardless of their content. I've seen spelling corrections reverted. I abandoned Wikipedia to its editor cult years ago.
That ought to really impress any prospective employers.
He can't say he took the class though, or can he? Maybe he just audited the class or did it as an independent study.
That's something Scott Thompson can actually put on his resume now.
And he can borrow from the Slashdot headline, "-- and Get Caught"
Well, they can always go work for political campaigns.
The title alone indicates to me that it's a liberal studies course, intended to heighten awareness of how trusted sources can be deceived. Getting an 'A' in a class with such a provocative title opens the door to interviews, where the student can demonstrate that they know and understand more than just the minimum qualifications for their degree.
And if I ever stated something like "trusted sources" in reference to Wikipedia or Reddit, I would have failed whatever paper or project I was working on. But then, I was got my BS in engineering and MS in science.
No, they're not trusted in academic circles, but for daily use and rudimentary research, they are. Personally, I trust Wikipedia exactly as much as I would an expert in the field. The expert can be mistaken or pushing a particular agenda, but is generally informative and mostly accurate.
If your future employer is going to be the Republican Party, the RIAA, the MPAA or Congress, it will!
My experience vandalising Wikipedia - and I do it every so often because it amuses me and because I think Wikipedia is one of the most harmful things the Internet has ever produced - is that Wikipedia is a power struggle game by the impotent.
So the number one rule for letting a vandalisation get through is to never openly disagree with "owners" of an article, i.e. those who make hundreds of edits to push their strong opinions. For example, you're not even going to get facts about Israel's atrocious behaviour in the Israel article, let alone bullshit. (However, it you write subtle bullshit which supports the position of the article owners, you're on to a winner.)
The second rule is to avoid the lazy syophants. Such toadying slimeballs observe all recent changes everywhere for nonsense edits simply to bump up their contribution count, so you need to make sure that no change you make is obviously nonsense.
The third rule is to appeal to stupidity. People who contribute to Wikipedia are neither very smart nor do they feel very secure, so you want to make an edit which is wrong but which makes them feel bad for doubting whether it's correct. If the statement you make is obviously irrelevant, or points to a mainstream source (e.g. mainstream news site) then it is easy to check, will be checked, and will be removed. If it cites a primary reference written for Adults, particularly if it isn't a guaranteed click away, you're much more likely to get away with the edit.
The fourth rule is to eschew braggadocio. Mentioning an obvious troll - your own or otherwise - on any public forum will guarantee that the troll is fixed. As the Stasi well knew, every community has its willing informants.
Even if all of your complaints about Wikipedians are true, I still say screw you for being a vandal.
I modded you up because it is interesting what you write, but don't get this wrong: This is not an endorsement, you are simply an asshole messing with other people's time and common goods.
My experience vandalising Wikipedia - and I do it every so often because it amuses me and because I think Wikipedia is one of the most harmful things the Internet has ever produced
You are a waste of oxygen. Wikipedia is one of the best resources in the world, and, frankly if you lived to be 1000, you would never produce anything with even one millionth of the value.
And your solution to wikipedia being bad is to try to make it worse to satisfy your own ego?
I am just wondering what types of articles does Mr. AC mess with? Messing with equations on math articles? Changing stuff on engineering or science? If I forget what Fermat's Last Theorem is (what, like I use it at work every day?), it would be nice to know that it wasn't changed to a^n + b^n = c^2n. (I'm going to have to check that article in about a week, aren't I? lol )
Now if we're talking about pop culture and similar topical topics, meh. Still not correct nor nice, but I don't care if [female cele
If you're willing to openly flout research ethics, it's not very hard to produce disinformation in many different venues, most of which rely to a greater or lesser extent on trust.
Here are some other things you can do:
1. Create an authoritative-looking website on an
2. Insert false historical facts slightly off the main article thesis into peer-reviewed articles. For example, write an engineering paper for an IEEE journal, and then insert a historical footnote with made-up biographical information. This will typically get a weak level of peer review, because IEEE journals will be primarily reviewing your technical contributions, not your historical footnote. Later, "launder" this false information into a more prominent position: write a more historical article, which cites the previous footnote as a source, thereby upgrading it. Now the peer-reviewed literature has confirmed your false information. Now you can really get it enmeshed in Wikipedia: write a Wikipedia article that cites your paper.
3. If you're invited to contribute an article or two to a specialist encyclopedia, one of those "Biographical Dictionary of [Field]" type things, insert false information into it. These carry some authoritative weight, but facts in them are rarely checked in detail, because the work of putting the encyclopedia together at all usually strains resources as it is, so authors have to be trusted.
If anything, I would say that Wikipedia is somewhat more resilient than many of these avenues are. The trick is that its resilience is somewhat eyeball-weighted: if you insert fabricated information into a widely read article such as [[George W. Bush]] or [[Byzantine Empire]], it will be noticed much sooner than if you insert it into a very obscure article that isn't linked anywhere, where nobody is even going to see it until some bored editor hits "Random Article" enough times.
There's another way this can happen, though:
1. Insert false information into Wikipedia without attribution on a subject that is likely to be of public interest.
2. Wait for a harried news reporter to pick up on the false information and use it in their article without attribution.
3. Go back and answer the [[citation needed]] with a link back to the news reporter's article.
This is why we had at least one ethics class for each of my degrees. If the perceived gains outweigh the perceived risks, people will do this all day long. Sad that college & grad level people need this drummed into their heads. Ethics should be introduced into high school curricula.
most users feel little ownership of the content.
This is probably because the admins are very quick to remind editors that they are the real owners, with a revert.
That is the reason Reddit picked up on it.
Just over a year ago, I posted (by request) some truths - was quickly lynched by several thousand users, branded a liar and a troll and forced out of the community.
Reddit users had just redefined the truth in their own image.
The dangers of community driven information - be it reddit or wikipedia.
Just over a year ago, I posted (by request) some truths - was quickly lynched by several thousand users, branded a liar and a troll and forced out of the community.
What were the truths?
I was diagnosed with a condition, and was asked to post about how it was to have it.
and these truths were?
When someone starts talking about "truth" before (or without bothering) going into details, generally they are trying to blow smoke up my nether regions. If this is where you started from, IMHO they were quite right to be suspicous.
I'm not saying you're wrong...just in really really bad company [google.com] at the moment.
There in lies the problem.
When those telling the truth are tarred with the same brush as those who are trolls, liars and the like - then there is a problem.
In my case - I was merely posting about my experiences with a disease that I have.
link? subreddit? username? anything to support your claim? moderators who banned you? Actions you took after it?
Same user name as Slashdot.
I wasn't banned by mods, rather lynched by the mob. That is, could no longer stay.
Actions I took - I requested help from the moderators - who didn't even reply to the request.
did involve a lack of proper proof? Because that subreddit, after being burned plenty of times, explicitly encourages demands of proof or else, downvoting the thread to prevent hoaxes.
You must provide proof of your identity in the body of your post when you submit your IAmA
If your identity is absolutely confidential, you may message proof to the mods
If your post is suspected fake and you do not verify proof, it may be subject to removal
This is a
>asked for proof or even just an assertion.
Saying your dong was 23" long as "truth" may be 'stretching' it. And the Reddit people redefining the "truth" because the ruler said differently is not really a lynching. When you don't actually meet the criteria for the "foot long plus" club, of course you're going to get kicked out. Though the "4 to 6" club would probably take your admission request.
This can happen anywhere. I certainly remember learning about the Tasaday in elementary school.
I find it completely ironic how the MSN throws Wikipedia under the bus. I was recently called by a major MSM print magazine to verify some facts in a story, some of the facts they were asking to verify were clearly laid out in a Wiki page that I myself had edited. Now after referring the editor to the Wiki page they said "we don't accept Wikipedia as a verification", and my response was "I already confirmed to you that the Wikipedia entry is factually correct", they then asked me to verify the facts listing them in the email as opposed to referring them to the Wikipedia site. So, I kindly did a screenshot and put it in the email saying "this is correct".
Now the irony is, I pointed out how the framing of the other facts that they were questioning, was in fact misleading. I also pointed out that they had not included very important facts, which I did list out, which would correct the misleading framing of the story and make it clear in the reader's eyes. Not only did they NOT include the facts that I pointed out in the printed version, but they grossly exaggerated the position and framing that they chose. I guess that sells more magazines.
The MSM industry is broken, corrupt, for sale, and in the hands of corporate giants looking to frame whatever story they want to spin. It is in their best interest that Wikipedia is relegated to a source than can never be used, and whose credibility is diminished to zero in the eyes of the public masses.
Is a fake article about a fake mass murderer 100 years ago a sign of lack of credibility? Or is framing a story around living people that demean them in order to create an "interesting story" that will sell magazines and swing public view toward a desired consensus a sign of lack of credibility? The MSM has zero scruples, and I wonder if there a grant around this research professor? Would be very interesting to know if there was a grant, and who paid for it.
SO a company was trying to not use Wikipedia, talk to an actually expert to avoid Wikipedia mistakes, and you were a dick about it.
Well done.
George Mason University curriculum:
"Lying About the Past" - a course for ex-Enron accountants, prerequisite for finding another job
"Lying About the Future" - strongly recommended for a successful career in politics
"Lying about the Present" - a required course for MBA majors
I resemble #3. Except the title included 5 more current buzzwords.
...I just don't trust the content anymore. If I'm trying to figure out if the actress I just saw on TV is the daughter of Raquel Welsh, yeah, but anything where there's some vested interest in hiding or distorting the truth (politics), I've learned to stay far away from it. I like learning new things and simply don't have the time to be auditing as much as I'm learning.
Or do you get extra credit for "Lying about your past"?
Only if you don't get caught. Ponder that conundrum.
"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger


text: Commercial food service equipment includes all of the food related equipment found in a commercial kitchen. This industry has a wide variety of control needs that include heating, cooling, refrigerating, dispensing, holding, washing, brewing, etc. Control Products can provide a custom solution for each customer and their unique application. We have over twenty years of experience designing custom controls for freezers, coolers, ice machines, warmers, fryers, and dispensers, to name just a few. We participate heavily in food service associations such as NAFEM and NRA to keep abreast of current trends and requirements in today's market.


text:
I think you mentioned Drake twice in the intro by mistake instead of a Brother Rice player.
Future Blue Originals: Harrison vs. Brother Rice and Pioneer vs. Bedford
As you can see, "Creeper Van Originals" is now "Future Blue Originals," because it turns out high school administrators sometimes read this stuff and may miss the tongue-in-cheek humor of the former title. As I would like to get continued access to high school games, CVO is now FBO. Also, there is no video this week, as the MHSAA won't credential MGoBlog for filming the playoffs because, in their words, we are a "fan site" and therefore are not granted press access. Trust me, this was fantastic news to hear on a Friday—aka the day I planned to film at Pioneer—after attempting to get in contact with them all week. Bitter? Oh, not at all.
ANYWAYS, I was able to make it to two games this weekend, the first to see running back Drake Johnson and my old high school, Ann Arbor Pioneer, take on Temperance Bedford, the second to watch commits Mario Ojemudia and Devin Funchess as well as recruits Jon Reschke and
Drake Johnson Lorenzo Collins as Farmington Hills Harrison took on Brother Rice in a much-hyped district final.
First, I'll cover the big upset—Brother Rice took down defending Division 2 state champ Harrison, 30-7, to hand the top-ranked Hawks their first loss of the season and eliminate them from the playoffs. This was a surprise, as Harrison has been nationally ranked for much of the year while Brother Rice had four losses, but the Hawks were without quarterback/safety Jake Vento due to injury and Ojemudia missed the first-half thanks to a dubiously-timed suspension for wearing pads at a summer camp, a violation of MHSAA rules. Highlights normally go here, but instead here's a photo of Brother Rice junior linebacker Jon Reschke, who had a phenomenal game:
Devin Funchess (Harrison TE #5, 2012 commit): Funchess came out strong early, recording his lone reception in the first half on a 21-yard catch-and-run that showed off his soft hands, good speed for his size, and ability to pick up yards after the catch. He nearly had the most impressive play of the night, skying to high-point a lob at midfield, but he came down hard and had the ball raked out by a BR defender. To add injury to insult, Funchess came up limping after the play, and while he gamely continued to play on both sides of the ball (he had three tackles and a TFL playing LB/DE, by my count)—the injury clearly affected his mobility, though he showed a lot of toughness by playing all-out in a losing effort despite limping off the field in obvious pain after several drives.
Mario Ojemudia (Harrison DE #53, 2012 commit): As stated earlier, Ojemudia had to sit out the first half because of his suspension, and by the time he saw his first snap Harrison was already down 10-0 and had just allowed a 70-yard kickoff return deep into Hawk territory to open the second half. You could tell Ojemudia was trying to shake off the rust after sitting for so long, and while he was able to get some penetration into the Brother Rice backfield, the Warriors spent most of the second half running clock—staying away from Ojemudia in the process. This was not a good game to evaluate Ojemudia for reasons largely outside his control, but his dominance this season speaks for itself.
Lorenzo Collins (Harrison RB #20, 2014 recruit): Collins has been a sophomore sensation for the Hawks, but he was largely held in check this game thanks to a very strong Brother Rice defense and the fact that Harrison had to play catch-up for essentially the whole game. 247Sports lists Collins, who finished with 40 yards on 12 carries, at 6'0", 200 pounds, though he looked a little smaller to me, though keep in mind he's just a sophomore. While he was largely limited, Collins did display the speed and agility that make him a player to watch in the future, including juking Reschke in the hole on one first-half carry and forcing a complete whiff, the only time I saw a Harrison player get past the Warrior linebacker. If Collins adds a little bulk and improves his ball security—Reschke forced him to fumble later in the half, though Harrison recovered—he should be a prospect who gets serious consideration for a four-star rating. He does have a bit of the Michael Shaw bouncebouncebouncebounce tendency, and doesn't display much power just yet (though he usually finds a way to fall forward), but again, we're talking about a high school sophomore.
Jon Reschke (Brother Rice LB #48, 2013 recruit): Reschke was the most impressive player on the field on Saturday, recording what must have been double-digit tackles (I lost count while trying to take some photos) and at least one tackle for loss to go along with the forced fumble. Reschke was always around the ball and had a displayed great instincts in finding the fastest path to the ballcarrier, and when he hit, you could hear it—Brady Hoke would likely be able to distinguish a Reschke tackle from those of his teammates without opening his eyes. Playing outside linebacker and a little bit of defensive end, Reschke chased down plays from sideline to sideline and never appeared out of position. He did get juked the one time by Collins, but otherwise kept plays in front of him, and looked like he's earned every bit of the early hype coming his way.
Photo Gallery:
Apologies for the lack of action shots, but I accidentally had the camera on the wrong setting for much of the second half—when I meandered down to the sideline from the bleachers—and came out with a bunch of blurry photos.
After the jump, get my impressions on Drake Johnson after his statistically-ridiculous effort against Bedford.
Game Summary
Pioneer took down Temperance Bedford, 35-10, thanks to a dominant performance from senior running back Drake Johnson, an elite track athlete who some have argued should earn a scholarship offer from Michigan should the Wolverines miss out on Bri'onte Dunn. Looking at Johnson's numbers, it's easy to see why—Pioneer gave him the ball on nearly every snap, and he finished with 348 yards and four touchdowns—from 28, 1, 2, and 95 yards—on 36(!) carries while also completing his only pass attempt for a 42-yard gain. The numbers are a bit deceiving—the 95-yarder came after the game was pretty much decided—but it was still a very strong effort, though I was not very impressed by Bedford's defense.
As a Pioneer grad, I hate to say this, but Johnson looked to me like a track athlete playing football, and not a player who should garner a BCS-level scholarship offer. His straight-ahead speed is very good, and that's all he needed against Bedford, but Johnson practically has to stop running entirely to make a cut—he really doesn't have any juke moves, instead choosing to bounce outside and run as fast as he can—and he also fumbled the ball three times (losing one) despite not taking any huge hits.
While Johnson usually fell forward, he also tended to go down on first contact, and instead of taking on hits he'd try to spin off contact, even against smaller defenders. The only time he really fought for extra yards, he ended up fumbling—he often carries the ball away from his body and seems to forget about ball security when he's in traffic. Pioneer listed him at 6'1", 215, and Scout has him in that same range, but he looked closer to 5'11", 190 to me (comparing him to his teammates and using the same roster, so take that with a grain of salt). Johnson is a heck of a high school player, and he's tasked with being the entirety of the Pioneer offense, but I see him as a preferred walk-on at best for Michigan.
Oops, good call. Was supposed to be Lorenzo Collins. I mean, all running backs are the same, right?
/watches Michigan, never says that again
Uh oh... wresler120 is about to go all head asplode-y.
Now I can stop thinking of the character of Dutch origin named "Creeper Van Originals" who haunts my dreams and plots revenge upon his cousin "Camper Van Beethoven."
it was probably time to retire the MGoCreeper van anyway.
Rice should have beaten Harrison last year if not for a very questionnable fumble call. This year Rice lost three of their four games by only four points. I am not convinced that Harrison would have beaten the warrirors even if Vento had been healthy and Ojemudia had not sat out the first half. I understand that Harrison is a very, very good team - but never count out a CHSL team like Rice or CC in a big game.
Did not mean to insinuite that Rice shouldn't have won the game or anything—they totally dominated from start to finish in pretty much every facet. I was more surprised by the final margin, and the fact that Harrison couldn't find a way to get the ball into Aaron Burbridge's hands with any consistency—he had four catches for 73 yards and a TD, but I thought Harrison called far too few plays in which he could get the ball on a short route and run, since their backup QB wasn't doing well at all throwing downfield.
Brother Rice is a very good team, and I could easily see them winning the state title after that performance. This game just would've been a lot closer (though still quite competitive, and with the way BR dominated the trenches I'd say the Warriors would still have won) if Vento could've gone and Ojemudia played the first half.
I can't imagine you as anything less than the epitome of impartiality.
Ha, didn't mean to come off that strong. Name actually has nothing to do with Brother Rice. I went to the BR-FHH game last year though and I truly believe that the fumble was a bad call. Was not trying to discredit Ace's review or anything like that. For the record, I think Rice's other loss was by a couple of tds. I guess I was more trying to provide a reason as to why the result occurred and why I did not find it that surprising.
btw Ace thanks for the reviews of the games and the work you do.
This reminds me of another guy who was too small ... 5'11 and 175 pounds ... had the same knock ... was more of a track athlete playing football ... tended too have trouble carrying the ball and fumbling issues .. never garnered any stars on scout and was a 2 star on rivals and both had him NR ... what's his name .... he went to ECU and then has had a decent career ... Chris Johnson
Then there's guys like Ryan Matthews .. DeAngelo Williams .. Matt Forte ... all lower rated players for various reasons
Let it go. Finding sleepers will happen but recruiting is a numbers game, if the coaches aren't seeing what they want to see in Johnson's game then so be it. Ace was reporting his impressions and to me it sounds like Johnson is like the star of my highschool team. All kinds of track speed, but no shake. The guy went on to be a JuCo All-American kick returner, but nothing beyond that.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, although for every Johnson/Matthews/Williams/Forte, there are hundreds—if not thousands—of guys who put up huge numbers in high school, don't garner high ratings or big-time offers, and fade into football obscurity.
I'm of the opinion that a player who must come to a complete stop to make a cut is not a Michigan-caliber running back. Sorry to disappoint. I have no reason not to want the kid to succeed, especially since I went to Pioneer, but I just don't see it happening at the BCS level. Chris Johnson's ability to juke is on another planet compared to Drake Johnson, and he's much faster, too.
Chris Johnson's ability to juke has landed.
I agree he has issues with holding onto the ball .. correctable with good coaching .. I do feel like he takes contact and keeps going .. evidenced by his 2011 highlight tape on youtube. He definitely runs outside a lot, as do many high school kids who are faster than everyone else on the field.
Also, for every Big Will Campbell there is a Jerel Worthy ... for every JT Turner there is a Prince Amukamara . for every Brandon Smith there is a Jordan Kovacs ... for every Boubacar Cissoko there is a Johnny Adams ... for every Laterryal Savoy there is a Marvin McNutt .. for every Sam McGuffie there is a Mikel LeShoure ... Point is ... just as many 4 and 5 stars flop as 2 and 3 stars flourish. It's all about coaching the kids up at the next level. Give me a kid with 3,000 yards and 40 TD's with great athletic ability, straight line speed, and some fumbling issues all day. The way a kid carries the ball is easily corrected.
Stars mean next to nothing ... look at our team Martavious Odoms was a 3 star .. Omameh a 2 star Jr Hemingway a 3 star Mark Huyge a 3 star Troy Woolfolk a 3 star Jordan Kovacs a walk on Thomas Gordon a 2 star JT Floyd a 3 star Brandin Hawthorne a 3 star Vincent Smith a 3 star Courtney Avery a 3 star Drew Dileo a 3 star Stephen Hopkins a 3 star Jake Ryan a 3 star Jibreel Black a 3 star Desmond Morgan a 3 star ... these are rivals ratings
We have as many 3 stars starting as we do 4 and 5 stars, and have quite a few 4 stars backing up 3 stars .. And we have a competitive team led by great coaching. The point is it all comes down to what kind of intangibles a kid has, and how much coaching it will take to get that kid to the next level. Everyone puts way too much stock into stars .. when you actually look into teams ... a lot of their better players are 2 and 3 star athletes.
Pass the cherries, please.
The whole "everyone puts way too much stock into stars" argument has been played out over and over here on MGoBlog. What is clear is that there is statistical data that higher rated high school players end up being higher rated college players. Of course there are always exceptions. You could name them until you are blue in the face. But the star rating system is what is used to rate high school talent and Johnson was rated a 3-star for a reason. Will he play like a 3-star in college? Who knows, but it is what it is - speculation of his worth at the college level based on his high school performance will always be flawed.
(And you didn't really help your point by mentioning all of the average to above-average 3-star players on the Michigan roster. While Jake Ryan and Desmond Morgan have yet to play out, the others have proven their worth (no doubt about it!!!) but do not prove your point that lower rated players can become elite stars. I say this tongue-in-cheek becase two of my favorite players are on your list.)
Chill out man, don't you see how many top recruits we are in on with very few spots left? Why would we spend a scholarship on this guy when we could very likely close the class out with all 4 stars, maybe even a 5 star RB. We aren't even desperate for a RB, so I would just give up hope of him recieving a scholarship. Besides, this board has no influence on what the coaching staff decides. Your friend will be fine, he has a scholarship to EMU, which honestly looks to be on the rise. Think about it this way, if you didn't know Drake Johnson, would you give him a scholarship knowing you could end up with a 5 star RB?
Ace what have you heard about Jon Reschke. I read a headline the other day on 247sports that said something like, "Reschke nearing a decision." It was behind a paywall so I had no idea what that meant and it was written by a sparty guy.
I know that his dad played at msu and I heard that he is a strong lean, but I also heard that he really like ND. I also thought that it was strange that he is nearing a decision considering he only has two offers. Does that mean he is that big of a sparty lean?
State has had a big edge for him since the jump, and unfortunately I'd be surprised if he ends up elsewhere. Michigan is still going after him, though, and he hasn't set any timeline in stone. I'm working on getting a hold of Jon for an interview, so we'll see if I can get some more out of him sometime before his season is over.
Thanks for the update. That's too bad, but I guess there is still lots of time. I'm not going to really hold my breath though.
Oh, and for people wondering (forgot to add this section), I'll be at Lake Shore HS on Friday to watch Cass Tech (Royce Jenkins-Stone, Terry Richardson, 2013 DB Jourdan Lewis) vs. Warren De La Salle (Shane Morris).
Just wondering how you felt that he did. Ther still seems to be some murmurs about his recruitment, and even if he still is going to State it's nice to keep tabs on their guys when possible.
There was reports of a twitter conversation between Funchess and Morris about recruiting Burbridge to switch to the good guys.
on the internets...
Jerry Sandusky can't understand why you changed the name.
I know, too soon...
*hangs head, waits for moderation*
Sorry, I meant to select funny. I laughed my ass off reading that comment. I bet Sandusky did have something to do with the creeper van becoming retired.