text:
- 3 Beds
- 2 Full, 1 3/4, 1 Half Baths
Property TypeResidential – Condominium
SubdivisionLiftside Condo
Listing Date10/28/19
Year Built1994
AreaCascade Village
Lot Size0.10 Acres (4,356 SqFt)
Parking2 Car Deeded
Property Description
This spacious 3-bedroom residence boasts windows on three sides inviting abundant light & sounds of Gore Creek. Whether the focus is on the forested mountainside, views overlooking the creek or up Chair 20, privacy & Mother Nature's beauty abounds. Common areas have been extensively remodeled with expanded ski locker, fitness & game rooms plus additional owner storage, pool & hot tub. Convenient? Absolutely! Ski-in/out to the lift, steps to TOV bus, Gore Valley Trail bike path & the Grand Hyatt.
Presented By
- Bus Route
- Creek or River
- Ski In
- Ski Out
- Walk to Slopes
- Creek/River
- Mountains
- See Remarks
- Ski Slopes
- South Facing
- Woods
- Golf-Public
- Health Club Membership
- Hiking/Pedestrian Trail
- On Bus Line
- On Site Management
- Pets
- Pool
- Tennis Courts
- Cable Available
- Deck
- Elevator
- Fireplace - Gas
- Hot Tub / Spa
- Jetted Bathtub
- Pool
- See Remarks
- Steam
- Clubhouse
- Fitness Center
- On Site Management
- Pets
- Pool
- See Remarks
- Shuttle Service
- Spa and Hot Tub
- Tennis
- Cable TV
- District Sewer
- District Water
- Electricity Avail.
- Natural Gas Avail.
- Phone Available
- Snow Removal
- Trash Pickup
- Common
- Forced Air
- Natural Gas
- Dryer
- Washer
Financial Information
3 Beds 3 Baths
8 Beds 6 Baths
4 Beds 4 Baths
3 Beds 4 Baths
We get asked this question a lot. Below is a tool that gives you the ability to see what the market is like in your community. Find out what homes like your own are selling for right in your back yard. Simply enter in your address, choose the proximity of the search and find out market data for other homes that are selling near you.
While we'll provide you with plenty of information, this is a snapshot of your market data and there are real people behind the high-tech and automated tools. If you would like more detailed information or help in understanding the results we are here to help.
Until then, enjoy the tools!
The data relating to the real estate for sale on this website comes in part from the Internet Data Exchange program of the Vail Multi-List Service, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Vail Multi List, Inc. (VMLS). The information displayed herein was derived from sources believed to be accurate, but has not been verified by VMLS. Buyers are cautioned to verify all information to their own satisfaction. This information is exclusively for viewers' personal, non- commercial use. Any republication or reproduction of the information herein without the express permission of the VMLS is strictly prohibited.
Listing courtesy of LIV Sotheby's International Realty - Covered Bridge


text:
How Green is DuPont's Alternative?
Credibility Gap: Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging: DuPont Press Quotes
In public statements, press releases, and on its website, DuPont continuously reiterated the same statement that "there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA." (DuPont 2007a, 2008a). DuPont's persistence in holding on to these statements is especially disingenuous in light of the extensive body of scientific literature that demonstrates toxicity of PFOA and other PFCs both in humans and in all other mammals tested to date. However, all of these findings have been hushed up, disregarded or minimized by DuPont for years.
DuPont has repeatedly said there is no evidence that PFOA causes adverse health effects and that data recently generated by the company will show that the chemical has a higher margin of safety than was determined in EPA's draft assessment.
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. April 14, 2003
"One reason is that C-8 persists in the environment for a long time; blood samples from around the country have found it in measurable quantities in more than 80 percent of the population. Some 3M tests showed toxicity in rats; DuPont dismisses those tests as not applicable to humans… DuPont apparently is too dependent on C-8 for Teflon manufacture to phase it out quickly, so its Web site explains, "There is no evidence or data that demonstrates PFOA causes adverse human health effects" at low levels of exposure."
-- News Journal, April 17, 2003
"DuPont defends its actions in not disclosing the test results because it said it "acted with the absolute confidence that the low or nondetectable levels of C8 found in the Little Hocking water samples in the mid-1980s posed no risk to the health of Little Hocking residents or our own employees in the area."
-- Plastics News, June 16, 2003
"By 1991, DuPont had information that C-8 was in the water supplies, according to company documents. But the EPA said DuPont did not inform federal regulators. DuPont asserts that there is no legal basis for the EPA's allegations. The company contends that it has fully complied with statutory reporting requirements and disputes any association between C-8 and harmful effects on human health or the environment."
DuPont General Counsel Stacey J. Mobley said the company would "vigorously defend our position" that no laws were broken and that the chemical was safe. "The evidence from over 50 years of experience and extensive scientific studies supports our conclusion that PFOA does not harm human health or the environment," Mobley said.""
"DuPont is contesting the accusations, and insists that neither PFOA nor Teflon poses risks to humans. ''The evidence from over 50 years of experience and extensive scientific studies supports our conclusion that PFOA does not harm human health or the environment,'' said Stacey J. Mobley, general counsel of DuPont, in a statement responding to the E.P.A. ruling."
The company (DuPont) says it has broken no laws and has sharply reduced emissions of PFOA. And studies on plant workers have shown PFOA to be safe, said Don Duncan, president of the Society of the Plastics Industry, and industry group. "It's not as if we've got people dropping in the streets out there," he said.
In a study awaiting publication, DuPont scientists say they find no risk associated with the everyday use of coated clothing, carpets and cookware, among other products. "We can say unequivocally that those articles are safe," said Robert C. Buck, a Ph.D chemists and senior research scientist with the company.
-- Philadelphia Inquirer, September 27, 2004
Although to date, no human health effects are known to be caused by PFOA, the company recognizes that the presence of PFOA in human blood raises questions that should be addressed," the company (Dupont) said in a statement. Dupont has said that 50 years of use and study support its conclusion that the chemical poses no danger to people.
-- Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2005
"DuPont remains confident that based on over 50 years of use and experience with PFOA there is no evidence to indicate that it harms human health or the environment," [stated] company spokesman R. Clifton Webb.
DuPont documents, though, show company officials were worried the public would learn the PFOA had contaminated local water supplies... "Biggest potential downside: plant contamination issues surface, case becomes class action," DuPont attorney concluded in a March 2000 e-mail.
-- Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2005
"Based on an evaluation of human health and toxicology studies, DuPont believes that the weight of evidence suggests that PFOA exposure does not cause cancer in humans and does not pose a health risk to the general public," DuPont spokesman R. Clifton Webb said. "To date, no human health effects are known to be caused by PFOA, even in workers who have significantly higher exposure levels than the general population."
-- Washington Post, June 29, 2005
The information demonstrating that PFOA moves across the placenta "should have been reported immediately to EPA," Nakayama says. DuPont also allegedly failed to report the results of blood tests, done at the company's request, of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit who live near the West Virginia plant. Those people drank water drawn from wells near the plant and had blood levels of PFOA that were significantly higher than that of the U.S. population. Other data DuPont allegedly did not turn over to EPA as promptly as required by law include three studies showing that an unidentified perfluorochemical was "significantly lethal" when inhaled by laboratory rats.
-- Chemical and Engineering News, December 19, 2005
DuPont, which manufactures Teflon and has used the chemical for more than 50 years, says there is no evidence that PFOA is harmful to humans. "The chemical does have an effect on animals that are fed high doses of it. But animals respond differently to PFOA than people, and there is no evidence that there are any health effects in people," said David Boothe, a DuPont manager.
-- Baltimore Sun, February 6, 2006
"We think the weight of evidence and science says, look, the things that are happening in rats don't happen in people," Boothe said. He also said the EPA has ignored company studies that did not find health problems in workers "exposed to thousands of times higher levels than in the general population." "So DuPont's position on this is, to date, there are no known health effects from exposure to PFOA," Boothe said."
-- Fort Worth Star Telegram, December 5, 2006
DuPont Spokesman David Booth testified PFOA is "essentially a high-tech detergent" that has been used for 50 years in manufacturing plastic and "as there are no known health effects from PFOA.""
-- Biloxi Sun Herald, January 26, 2007
"Dan Turner, a spokesman for DuPont, which uses PFOA in the production of Teflon, said the company is convinced its products pose no threat to human health. "DuPont believes and maintains that consumer products sold with trace levels of PFOA are safe for their intended use," he said. He added that he was familiar with the Johns Hopkins research. "To date, there are no known human health effects known to be caused by PFOA," he said."
-- Cox News Service, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 26, 2007
One of the studies, carried out by researchers at the blue-chip Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, found the chemical in every single one of the 299 umbilical cords analyzed, suggesting that every baby is born already contaminated by it. Similar levels have been found in babies in Europe and Japan. It also found that the babies whose cords had the highest concentrations of PFOA were born lighter, thinner and with smaller head circumferences than others. The second study - carried out in the US and Denmark, with babies drawn from the Danish National Birth Cohort - came up with similar findings for birth weight, the only measurement it made. "DuPont has long insisted that "there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA", and now adds: "Our position is that the studies have not changed our position."
-- The Independent, August 26, 2007
Dupont statements on its website (2007)
DuPont Position on PFOA: "To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA. Based on health and toxicological studies conducted by DuPont and other researchers, DuPont believes the weight of evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public" (DuPont 2007a).
PFOA Facts: "Occupational exposure to PFOA has been associated with small increases in some lipids (e.g. cholesterol). It is not known whether these are causal associations. These associations were not observed in a community study. Based on health and toxicological studies, DuPont believes the weight of evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA, although study of the chemical continues" (DuPont 2007b).
PFOA - Safety: "PFOA has been used safely by DuPont and others for more than 50 years with no known human health effects to date" (DuPont 2007b).
"Still, DuPont -- which paid a heavy fine to the EPA for failing to report internal studies on the health risks of PFOA and settled a lawsuit that alleged PFOA-contaminated drinking water near a DuPont plant -- insists that PFOA does not pose a health risk to the general public."
-- Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2008
"DuPont has stated that there is no evidence of health threats from PFOA, but a federal advisory panel recommended classifying it as a probable carcinogen."
Dupont website and press releases (2008)
"DuPont believes the weight of evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA" (DuPont 2008a, 2008b).
"Based on health and toxicological studies, DuPont believes the weight of evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA, although study of the chemical continues" (DuPont 2008c).
Notably, the same stance is adopted by other fluorochemical manufacturers:
3M website, 2008
"In more than 25 years of medical surveillance we have observed no adverse health effects in our employees resulting from their exposure to PFOS or PFOA. This is very important since the level of exposure in the general population is much lower than that of production employees who worked directly with these materials." "The extensive research to date shows no adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to PFOS or PFOA. This is supported by observational research involving thousands of 3M production employees" (3M 2008).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Modern population genetics suggests that the ancestors of the majority of English people were not fifth-century Anglo-Saxon invaders, but actually came from the 'Basque' region of South West France and northern Spain. What is perhaps even more surprising is that they arrived on these shores thousands of years ago. This turns one prevailing view of English national identity on its head, argues Stephen Lewis.
If you ask a person in the United States what is means to be American, their first response is often couched in terms of values, perhaps freedom, human rights and democracy. The more historically aware might even make mention of the War of Independence or the articles and meaning of the American Constitution. The English language might just get a look in; but as America becomes more multilingual this seems less and less critical.
There is no doubt that numerous Americans seek their roots throughout the world, and can find a secondary identity in their national or racial origins: Italian American, Irish American, Japanese American, Native American, African American and so on. But individual, as opposed to national, identity has always been acknowledged to be a very complicated thing.
Deep down Americans know that they are all immigrants and celebrate the fact that their country is a melting pot. For sure, the country has suffered more than its fair share of racism, but this doesn't negate the fact that today its citizens don't primarily view their American identity in racial terms.
The situation in Britain is somewhat different. While the Scots and the Welsh tend to have a clearer understanding of what it means to them to be Scottish or Welsh – quite often defined by their opposition to the English oppressor – it is sometimes said that the English are suffering a 'crisis of identity.'
Partially true though this might be, the heart of English identity isn't nearly so fragile. It runs deeper and goes farther back than taking pride in the fact that a small people managed to rule a quarter of the world. Now here we get into a terribly British confusion of terms. The 'Empire' is usually described as the 'British Empire', yet most English people see it as theirs. After all didn't the English conquer the Scots, Welsh and Irish first, before venturing into the rest of the world!
Now national identity, like that of individuals, is also a very varied construct. It has historical, linguistic, political, cultural and racial threads. These threads, mythic and even strange though many of them are, remain very real today. They were, until recently, taught to generations of English school children. Two very strange examples can be used as illustrations: those of King Arthur and Richard the Lion Heart. Both are often cited as having been important people for England and for what it means to be English. But Arthur was probably a British warlord, who fought against the English invaders; while King Richard was just another in a long line 0f thuggish French-speaking rulers who couldn't have cared less about the English people – except as a source of fighting men and money.
But even if all the myths and falsifications that often pass as English history are stripped away, there still remains a core of "Englishness". One widespread view is that this core is to be found in the language and racial origins of the English. Put as succinctly as possible, the English are the descendents of Dark Age Anglo-Saxon invaders, who slaughtered and replaced the indigenous British population, and brought with them their Germanic language, a language that would eventually become the English we speak today.
Once the Roman legions had been withdrawn from Britain in the early fifth century, the British population, and the small remaining Romano-British elite, were faced by incursions and attacks from many sides – not least from the Picts and Irish ("Scots"). In response, Gildas, the sixth century British monk, tells us "they convened a council to decide the best and soundest way to counter the brutal and repeated invasions and plunderings…" They choose to invite the Saxons as mercenaries. Gildas continues:
Nothing more destructive, nothing more bitter has ever befallen the land. How utter the blindness of their minds! How desperate and crass the stupidity! Of their own free will they invited under the same roof a people whom they feared worse than death …
A pack of cubs burst forth from the lair of the barbarian lioness, coming in three keels, as they call warships in their language.
Later, the Saxons complained that they hadn't been paid and "swore that they would break their agreement and plunder the whole island …. they put their threats into immediate effect."
This is the ethnic 'wipeout' theory of English history. Although it is acknowledged that it took the Anglo-Saxons another three centuries to gain full control of most of what is now England, for many the facts seem plain. The native Britons were either massacred and replaced or pushed back to more remote, and less fertile, mountainous areas, such as Wales, Cornwall or Cumbria. The hardy and adventurous English people settled 'England' – and we all speak English today as a result.
This is the English national origin story. Bloody and brutal though it is, it is what distinguishes the English from their 'Celtic' neighbours in Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
While once common such a telling of history has not gone unopposed. Some have argued that the extent of Anglo-Saxon settlement was very modest and even (though not very convincingly) that there was no 'invasion' at all. These counter-arguments are generally based on different interpretations of the archaeological record. It is argued that the shifts in material culture that we can see, in no way indicate that they were 'caused' by the arrival of a new and ethnically distinct population – whether invaders or otherwise. Cambridge archaeologist Catherine Hills points out that "people can change their names, language, currency and political allegiances without the majority of the population being replaced".
Archaeologist Francis Pryor puts his case as follows:
If Anglo-Saxon people and culture displaced 'native' practices, one would expect the latter to have vanished. They did not.
The problem in holding this view is twofold: 1) Although there is a paucity of historical documents, the ones we have, whether Anglo-Saxon or British, clearly state that the Anglo-Saxons did come, did rebel and fought many battles to secure their dominance and establish their Kingdoms, and 2) If there were no "wipeout" and, even more so, if there were no invasion at all, then how did English become the language of England while, tellingly, containing almost no vestige of the native British/Celtic languages?
How we are to interpret the historical chroniclers, and to which of them we should give the most credence, will likely remain a troublesome issue for historians of England, as for all historians, for years to come.
The question of how English came to be the only language in England seems even more intractable. Why this is a difficult issue can be illustrated by two other, rather different, invasions. Invasions where the invaders' language did not replace the native language.
The Franks were a Germanic speaking people who entered what is now France at much the same time as the Anglo-Saxons came to Britain. Yet even four hundred years later, around the year 800, when the Frankish King, Charlemagne, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, he still spoke 'German', and had little grasp either of Latin or its offshoot: an early form of French. Despite the dominance of the Frankish invaders, there is almost no German influence in modern French – just a few, mostly military, words and quite a number of Germanic place names. This may be due to the fact that Roman Gaul retained a functioning Roman (and Latin speaking) administrative system even after the Western Empire had started to collapse. Whatever the reason, the French don't speak German today!
Closer to home, and possibly more instructive, is the case of the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Although descended from Germanic speaking Vikings, William the Conqueror and his henchmen spoke Norman French. Over subsequent decades and centuries, as the Normans dispossessed and suppressed the English, their numbers were never very large. During all this time, they never failed to show disdain for the conquered English and their language. French remained the language of the kings, the lords and of much of the governance of the country. English, which in Anglo-Saxon times had been a great language of literature, religion and administration, was reduced to written silence. Yet despite all this English survived. It assimilated a huge swathe of French, which changed the language from the 'Old English' of King Alfred to the 'Middle English' of Chaucer, but it was still a predominantly Germanic language, as it remains to this day. Yet again a powerful and far-reaching invasion failed to lead to the wholesale adoption of the language of the victors by the indigenous population.
Let's return to the 'Saxon Advent'. If, as Francis Pryor and others contend, there wasn't really any Anglo-Saxon invasion and takeover, then how did English become so sweepingly and exclusively adopted? More traditional historians will concede that the number of Anglo-Saxons who came to Britain in the fifth century, and subsequently, was never very high in comparison to the existing native British population. Perhaps at most a few hundred thousand 'English' compared to a couple of million Celts. Unless the wipeout or pushback theory is in large measure correct, then how is it that the Germanic language of the invaders wasn't eventually lost? As happened in Frankish Gaul. Or combined in some way with the native language or languages? As happened in post-conquest England.
And here we might be stuck if it weren't for the population genetics.
Early attempts to use science to explore the origins of peoples and their historical movements had to rely on the analysis of blood groups. This approach was pioneered by the Italian population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He and others used it to examine, among other things, how early neolithic farmers spread from the fertile crescent into Europe. But blood group analysis has severe limitations and looking more rigorously at human origins, and the origins of specific peoples, had to wait till the science of genetics was refined enough to make a contribution. This it has certainly done. In terms of the origins of the British, or in our case the English, dozens of studies have now been conducted. These have been synthesised (and extended by his own research) by the Oxford geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer. He presented the rather startling results in his book The Origins of the British. Oppenheimer writes:
To summarize, the phylogeographic approach establishes three broad aspects of West European and British colonization in the past 16,000 years which have a bearing on the Anglo-Saxon question. First, all but a few per cent of male and female gene lines appear to have arrived in the British Isles before the historical period (i.e. before the Anglo-Saxons). Second, most British colonizers, including about two-thirds of English ancestors, came from the Iberian refuge soon after deglaciation, or at least during the Mesolithic. And third, the subsequent colonization of the British Isles during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age was complex in time and space, but mainly came from the other side of the North Sea.
Oppenheimer estimates that the 'Anglo-Saxons' account for "only 5.5%" of the ancestors of modern English people. That means that about 19 out of 20 English people are not Anglo-Saxon at all! What is more, the ancestors of fully two-thirds of English people came from the "Iberian" refuge – that is, an area of southern France and northern Spain centred on the present day Basque Country.
How did this come about? The answer is to be found in the climate history of Europe. Modern humans first arrived in Britain at least 25,000 years ago. But then, not much later, the Ice Age came back with a vengeance. During the so-called Last Glacial Maximum, between about 22,000 and 17,000 years ago, large tracts of northern Europe and Britain became covered with an ice sheet, while more southerly climes became freezing wind-swept polar desert or arctic tundra. In these conditions human life became impossible, and we are pretty sure that Britain became depopulated. Humans retreated south and found sanctuary in a number of so-called ice age refuges. Two of the main refuges were located in the Balkans/Ukraine region and in South West France and northern Spain – today the region occupied by the 'Basques'. Today visitors to the latter region can still marvel at the wonderful cave paintings of this population; dating from periods known to archaeologists as Gravettian, Solutrean and Magdalenian.
Around 16,000 years ago, as the climate began again to warm, and the ice and snow began to recede, groups of settlers started to move north. Predominantly sticking to the coastal route of western France, and finding the 'English channel' was still dry, they simply walked into Britain. With so much water still stored in the ice, it wasn't just the 'Channel' that was dry, the same even applied to the North and Irish Seas. Britain was not yet an island, but rather a peninsular of the European continent.
At different times over the course of millennia, various 'founder' settler groups arrived in Britain. According to Oppenheimer, these early settlers came from a number of locations in Europe, at different times and via different routes. But the single largest 'genetic origin' of the English was the 'Basque' refuge'. As we have seen, these 'Basque' migrations account for two-thirds of the gene lines of the present-day English population.
Now Oppenheimer's conclusions are certainly not uncontested; although the evidence in their support is strong and compelling. But, if true, his analysis and results have profound implications for at least one view of English national identity; that of our 'Anglo-Saxon origins. It seems the vast majority of English people can trace their distant ancestry not to a group of Dark Age Germanic invaders, the Anglo-Saxons, but rather to truly prehistoric settlers who came to Britain in the millennia following the last age. In this sense the English are truly more Basque than Anglo-Saxon!
This might be disappointing news for those who think that English and Anglo-Saxon are synonymous. But for others it is surely wonderful to know that our British or English ancestors have lived on this small island for millennia.
It needs to be acknowledged that many people, while perhaps accepting that speaking English is important for a sense of Englishness, would vociferously object to the contention that 'being English' has anything to do with ethnic or racial origins. The English people are not all immigrants, unlike the Americans, yet many feel absolutely no connection with the 'Anglo-Saxon' or any other racial version of English identity. They might be recent immigrants themselves, or their ancestors could have arrived as French Huguenots, Flemish merchants, Jewish refugees or, more recently, as immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, the Caribbean, Africa or Eastern Europe. What does 'being English' mean to them? That is another question.
Perhaps if we want to value a sense of Englishness at all, we might find it in the supposed sense of decency and fairness of the English people, in their long struggle for social and political liberty and in their genius for invention and industry. Peoples throughout the world could, and indeed do, claim to share these qualities: the Americans, the French, the Dutch and many, many others. We need, however, to distinguish very clearly between some genuinely noble qualities of peoples and the actions of their rulers. The British or American governments, for example, have not always been a force for liberty, democracy and freedom in the world, nor have they even been so at home. Yet their peoples are predominantly decent and fair. As Francis Pryor nicely puts it:
If we are looking for English origins, we should forget the 'Anglo-Saxons' and turn instead to the resident population, who had been there in their millions and in their various cultures and communities, all the time. I refer of course, to the real heroes….: that diverse group of people – the British.
All peoples should know their 'real' history; the history of vast majority rather than the myths of the powerful that have been propagated so effectively. Knowing that most of us are more Basque than Anglo-Saxon shouldn't be a cause for regret – it just goes to show that we have a long and intimate relationship with the land we inhabit. Is it not better to have a national identity built around a feeling of empathy and respect for those of our ancestors, of whatever race, who have struggled, in the face of enormous opposition, to obtain some of the rights and privileges we enjoy today? This, in my view, certainly applies to England.
One final remark might be in order. Although genetic studies seem to have 'proved' that the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory is wrong, genetics can tell us nothing about language. If only 5.5% of English people have Anglo-Saxon roots then why do we all speak English? This question has yet to be satisfactorily answered.
Stephen Oppenheimer. The Origins of the British. London: Constable & Robinson, 2006; Francis Pryor. Britain AD. London: Harper Perennial, 2005; Gildas. The Ruin of Britain. (Ed. John Morris). London:Phillimore, 1978.


text:
This month, we honor Law Enforcement Ambassador Brent Clark, who has been an Ambassador for the past six years. Not only has Brent volunteered countless hours during National Police Week and throughout the year, he works closely with our staff to coordinate our Law Enforcement Appreciation events with professional sports teams across the country.
Brent has been a great mentor to other Ambassadors helping us to start Law Enforcement Appreciation events in Nashville, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia. Just last year, Brent helped us with more than six events raising more than $22,000 toward building the National Law Enforcement Museum. This year he has already coordinated five events which have sold more than 726 tickets and counting.
Brent is an active federal law enforcement agent. Originally from Michigan, he has been assigned to the New York City area. He supports our efforts along with teams in the Detroit and New York area. Brent not only volunteers his personal time and energy to support the mission of the Memorial Fund and Museum, he is also a personal donor to the "A Matter of Honor" Campaign to build the National Law Enforcement Museum.
Interested in becoming an Ambassador/Guardian? Visit www.LawMemorial.org/contribute/ambassadors.


text:
Functionica - spares & accessories
If you need help finding the right spare part for your appliance or if you need advice before buying a specific spare part or accessory for your , then you're always welcome to contact our customer support team on firstname.lastname@example.com. Please remember to inform us of your appliance's model number. You'll find the model number on the appliance nameplate. The model number is essential in order for us to find the correct part for your .
At Spares on Web we have many years of experience with home repairs, and we're able to offer you professional guidance, when you're going to repair your appliance yourself.


text:
Letter to a 'co-conspiracy theorist': Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire
November 30, 2009
Caption Climategate U-turn 'On thin Ice – The hockey stick graph fraud', The Daily Mail UK, Feb 14, 2010
Dear 'co-conspiracy theorist' M – Hi.
What Dr. Tim Ball stated in his concluding remarks in the following climategate video also captures my sentiments:
"… but you know what, finding out that what I was saying was true there is no pleasure in that whatsoever. No pleasure in 'I told you so' because this is a deeply troubling time not only for climate-science, but Science in general." — Minute 9:30, Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails, November 21, 2009 on corbettreport http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
And as sweeping as that "deeply troubling time" statement is, I would say Dr. Tim Ball still didn't go far enough. He did not unravel the overarching agenda and the galactic extent it permeates its corrupting tentacles as noted in this Letter to Editor: Understanding the Political Science behind Global Warming February 07, 2009, and in this Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government' December 11, 2008.
And neither did Senator Inhofe examine the 'WHY' of "cooking that science" in this exchange on Fox News back in June 2009:
Fox News Anchor: "Does it appear to you that the EPA buried evidence that would have made the President's climate change bill unnecessary"?
Sen. Inhofe: "Oh absolutely Greg. They have been cooking that science since 1998. …"
Fox News Anchor: "And here is what Alan Carlin said [Author of EPA 98-page study on climate change]: 'My view is…there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global temperatures are roughly where they were in mid-20th century. They're not going up. If anything, they're going down.' In other words, if there is no endangerment, there is no need for a Bill."
Sen. Inhofe: "The thing is phony. I feel so good about being redeemed after all these years… all of those scientists that Al Gore had lined up… all of them used to be on his side, they all said wait a minute, this science isn't right, and that's exactly what Alan Carlin said…" — Minute 0:30, Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming: 'This Thing Is Phony', Fox News, June 29, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg
The following is an interesting map of global temperatures – I am not sure of the source or accuracy of the specifics of the data from which it is constructed, but the planetary level temperature cycles are quite empirical:
Caption Global Temperature Chart 2500 BC to 2040 AD By Cliff Harris and Randy Mann (Image source longrangeweather.com)
Whereas, not unlike the many previous diabolical mantras deployed by the ruling establishment as pretexts for different facets of its "imperial mobilization" agenda, the following is the famous "hockey-stick" science graph used for promoting the mantra of Global Warming:
Caption The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science by John L. Daly (graph courtesy wattsupwiththat.com)
Canadian Professors Ross McKitrick and Christopher Essex deconstructed that hockey-stick science along with their notable non-conformist collaborator and businessman from Toronto, Steve McIntyre, in their 2003 book Taken by Storm, long before climategate. But Prof. Ross too, circumspectly, only called it "bad science", judiciously refraining from calling it Science in the Service of Empire which it is:
'Michael Coren: "What's all this about a hockey-stick?"
Ross McKitrick: "Well, the hockey-stick graph. This was back in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], it's a UN body that every five years puts out a big assessment of the science. And they are especially alert to any evidence that really promotes the Global Warming story and they give it lots of promotion. And in 2001, they latched onto this result that was fairly fresh in the literature, that had to with what's called paleoclimatology. The study of the behavior of the climate from way back before we had thermometers.
Now, for decades the standard view has been that over the past thousand years, there is a Medieval era, which is very warm compared to the present. You know, the Greenland, the Vikings were able to have farms in Greenland. All over the world there is evidence that it was warmer, and basically better for people. And then things got cold for about 500 years, up to the 1800s, and then we were in a warming phase coming out of the little ice-age as it was called.
In the 2001 IPCC report, they changed all that and presented a graph that looks like a hockey stick lying on its side. So the mean state of the climate is almost constant, up until the year 1900, and then suddenly the temperatures started rising rapidly.
And this was very dramatic. It was an extremely effective graphics for getting people worried about global warming.
And it featured prominently in the debates over Kyoto, the government of Canada had it on its website. Actually the government of Canada quoted from it in a pamphlet they sent out to households across the country, and governments around the world did the same thing. Al Gore features it in his movie." — Minutes 0:23 to 2:20
Michael Coren: "… Hold on, you are being very generous here. The hockey stick was used time and time again, and in fact, it became almost iconic within the Global Warming movement. As you say, movies, and pamphlets sent out to people across Canada. And you are not saying to me, it was never genuine, either because there was weak research, or even dishonest research, this is kafkaesque."
Ross McKitrick: "Well, what we found along the way was there was statistical errors, but one of the big problems was they'd used a contaminated dataset. They had about 400 input data series of these temperature proxies, but they way they were analyzing them was most of the data was thrown out, and there is one little segment of the dataset that all the results depended on, and they are called bristle cone pine series. It's a funny looking tree that grows mostly in Western United States and they grown very old. Thousand years old.
But, people have long known, and the National Academy of Science has repeated this warning: you shouldn't use them for temperature reconstructions, because they have this hockey-stick shape that's got nothing to do with temperature.
Well, it turned out that the hockey-stick graph was formed by taking these bristle cone pines and just putting all the weight on them.
And the original author had redone his analysis taking this small number of bristle cone pines out, and the whole shape changes. The graph just loses its shape, it just becomes sort of noisy and nothing. So, they knew when they published this study."
Michael Coren: "They lied!"
Ross McKitrick: "I wouldn't say they lied. I think what they did was they didn't disclose the fundamental weakness of the original result." ' — Minute 4:42 to 6:20, conversation with Professor Ross McKitrick, The hockey stick is wrong and result of bad science, on Michael Coren Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE
As the above narratives brazenly disclose, one can't expect any effective policing of empire by those fed from the crumbs of empire, never mind unravel the hidden agendas! Just look at even Professor Ross McKitrick's apologetics on behalf of his fellow-scientist whose fraud he himself exposed, as being mere errors of omissions and not outright lying despite the acute probing by the interviewer. That modus operandi of crafty omissions and half-truths, as is examined later in this letter, is a full lie and the vulgar propagandists' key mechanism for manufacturing mantras, dissent, and consent for empire.
In any event, as the political science thesis contained in my aforementioned Letter to Editor argues, there is indeed a prime reason for "cooking that science" of climate-change. It is, quite un-surprisingly, along the same global axis as the prime reason for "cooking the science" of Swine Flu as already unraveled in The Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say 'No' to the Swine Flu Vaccine. See its Preamble for a succinct examination of the principle modus operandi in the globalists' own handwritings. In this case, it is to fabricate plausible sounding justifications for legally ushering in the architecture of 'carbon credit', regardless of whether there is global warming, global cooling, or no significant temperature change. That is the real heart of the matter and the focus of heated debates for the past ten years being whether or not there is global climate change, as now in the climategate that there isn't, is a gigantic red herring.
The point of focus shouldn't be the unraveling of the deception, but the unraveling of the crucial agendas behind the deception for which mantras are so painstakingly fabricated and consent manufactured.
As both, Zen wisdom and forensic science dictate, these revelations are "like a finger pointing away to the moon – don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory"!
That Letter to Editor noted above examined the 'why' question, quoting from an earlier analysis of Global Warming:
'And as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman's article why this is politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it, tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for population reduction (citations for these statements are in my various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to control 'life activity', and carbon-credit is their architecture of control!
It is somewhat akin to acquiring control of a nation's money supply in the guise of managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is happening here. Think of acquiring control of 'carbon-credits' almost equivalent to acquiring control of a nation's money supply! This will control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it, between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government. And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out! Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a superfluity of industry and commerce, control of 'carbon-credit' is intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations aspiring to grow their nascent economies!' — NB: On Global Warming December 12, 2008
And it is instructive to juxtapose all of that perspective with the motivation for population control expressed by David Rockefeller at the UN Ambassadors dinner, as transcribed in Project Humanbeingsfirst's Monetary Reform Bibliography:
"Ironically however, the very innovations that are making possible dramatic improvements in human well-being are also creating new problems which raise the spectre of an alarming and possibly catastrophic disaster to the biosphere we live in. And herein lies the dilemma that we all face. Let me illustrate. Improved public health, has caused the world's infant mortality rate to decline by 60 percent over the last 40 years. In the same period, the world's average life expectancy has increased from 46 years in 1950s to 63 years today. This is a development which as individuals we can only applaud. However the result of these positive measures is that the world population that has risen during the same short period of time geometrically to almost 6 billion people, and can exceed easily 8 billion by the year 2020.
The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary eco-systems is becoming appallingly evident. The rapid growing exploitation of the world's supply of energy and water is a matter of deep concern. And the toxic by products of widespread industrialization and increased atmospheric pollution to dangerous levels. Unless nations will agree to work together to tackle these cross-border challenges posed by population growth over consumption of resources and environmental degradation, prospects for a decent life on our planet will be threatened. The recent UN meeting in Cairo is appropriately focussed on one of these key issues, population growth.
But the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and which have a profound moral dimension. The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing the world population and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral considerations.
Economic growth is of course an inevitable corollary of a growing population, and is essential to improved standards of living. But without careful coordination, unrestrained economic growth poses further threats to our environment.
This was a major subject of discussion at the conference in Rio de Janeiro on the environment two years ago. The focus then was on sustainable growth, and global development. It was pointed out at the conference that growth is most efficiently managed by the private sector, but regulation of the process by national governments and international bodies is also needed. And once again, United Nations can certainly be among the catalysts and coordinators of this process." — David Rockefeller, United Nations Ambassador's Dinner, hosted by the Business Council for the United Nations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8
So many learned people betray shock and surprise by climategate that they betray their own pathetic ignorance of the doctrinal craftsmanship of empire. Yes, and among them are the most brilliant scientists on the planet – a phenomenon I call the "ignorance of the learned". Some are pleased or have the 'told you so' reaction, and some just pooh-pooh it as insignificant, but few betray any deep forensic comprehension of the full import of the Machiavellian agenda behind the mantra now becoming unraveled. I haven't bothered studying these leaked materials since the confirmation they proclaim is a waste of my time. As the good Dr. Tim Ball candidly stated, it also gives me absolutely no pleasure to receive confirmation that I see the tortuous reality for what it is. I'll examine their details when it becomes pertinent to some analysis I am doing. These climategate leaks contain no profound knowledge which can benefit me – and that's because Hari Seldon's statecraft of 'psychohistory', I mean Machiavellian political science, predicts the hijacking of hard-science as well as social-science accurately. It is manifest across the board.
And Dr. Tim Ball acutely put his finger on the precise modus operandi used in imperial science today as its key loci of control for conferring credibility and respectability to priesthood for inclusion into empire's officially approved churches: the peer-review process. I call it "incestuous science"! The peer-review process cannot approve or adjudicate, by definition, anything outside of the conventional wisdom endorsed by the peers of empire if the science ever goes against the principal interests of empire. So, while it can work well for science which does not challenge empire's interests or entrenched prevailing wisdom, peer-review has undeniably become a bloody scam to promote establishment's own agendas, to issue grants, to authenticate pseudo-scientific plausible-sounding justifications for pre-determined outcomes, and to see who falls in line for further reward and who qualifies for ostracization.
This should be self-evident irrespective of the climategate brouhaha. Page 101 of John Perkins 2004 book "Confessions of the Economic Hitman" for instance, also reveals an example of the perverse respectability gained from peer-review publishing of entirely bogus mathematical econometric-theory in furtherance of the hegemonic agenda for diabolically acquiring control over developing nations and their natural resources. This is what John Perkins confesses in the opening pages of Chapter 17, titled Panama Canal Negotiations and Graham Greene:
'Bruno came up with an idea for an innovative approach to forecasting: an econometric model based on the writings of a turn-of-the-century Russian mathematician. The model involved assigning subjective probabilities to predictions that certain specific sectors of an economy would grow. It seemed an ideal tool to justify the inflated rates of increase we liked to show in order to obtain large loans, and Bruno asked me to see what I could so with the concept.
… By 1977, I had built a small empire that included a staff of around twenty professionals headquartered in our Boston office, and a stable consultants from MAIN's other departments and offices scattered across the globe. I had become the youngest partner in the firm's hundred-year history. In addition to my title of Chief Economist, I was named manager of Economics and Regional Planning. I was lecturing at Harvard and other venues, and newspapers were soliciting articles from me about current events. I owned a sailing yacht that was docked in Boston Harbor next to the historic battleship Constitution, "Old Ironsides", renowned for subduing the Barbary pirates not long after the Revolutionary War. I was being paid an excellent salary and I had equity that promised to elevate me to the rarified heights of millionaire well before I turned forty. True, my marriage had fallen apart, but I was spending time with beautiful and fascinating women in several continents.
… [With that as background] I brought a young MIT mathematician, Dr. Nadipuram Prasad, into my department and gave him a budget. Within six months he developed the Markov method for econometric modeling. Together we hammered out a series of technical papers that presented Markov as a revolutionary method for forecasting the impact of infrastructure investment on economic development.
It was exactly what we wanted: a tool that scientifically "proved" we were doing countries a favor by helping them incur debts they would never be able to pay off. In addition, only a highly skilled econometrician with lots of time and money could possibly comprehend the intricacies of Markov or question its conclusions. The papers were published by several prestigious organizations, and we formally presented them at conferences and universities in a number of countries. The papers – and we – became famous throughout the industry.'
And specifically, returning to climategate, in the case of the first author of climategate sciences in the service of empire, John L. Daly wrote the following of Michael Mann in The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science:
'Michael Mann
At the time he published his `Hockey Stick' paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year later was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of 34.
He is now the Lead Author of the `Observed Climate Variability and Change' chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann's paper, said: "The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year."
Mann is also now on the editorial board of the `Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of `Climatic Change'. He is also a `referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).
He was appointed as a `Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.
Mann lists his `popular media exposure' as including – "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17].
Mann's career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences, namely the `star' system where high-profile scientists are promoted swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system reduces a science to the level of Hollywood.'
Unfortunately, the last passage in the aforementioned complete quote is where John L. Daly too failed to appreciate the import of Science in the Service of Empire, narrowly pinning the problem as only plaguing "modern climate sciences".
It should be evident to all men and women of science that neither Darwin nor Galileo would ever have passed peer-review. The fact that genuine scientists seeking the peer review process don't seem to care about this blatant obviousness which is even rooted in historical precedence, suggests that they wisely choose to remain within the allowable confines of acceptable research, i.e., funded research, even when they have no diabolical or mal intent of their own. The control in science is exercised in a manner not too dissimilar to permitting vigorous and contrarian social debate within an allowable spectrum to give the illusion of free speech and freedom of thought! Those falling outside the allowable limits are of course variously labeled and marginalized.
Thus, while no one may challenge the sacred-cow HolocaustTM narrative in the EU or Canada without going to jail as everyone already knows, debating and developing competing theories on Islamofascism and maligning Islam and its Prophets is greatly encouraged as the epitome of freedom of speech and profound intellectualism. But challenging the very premise of Osama Bin Laden or 'Radical Islam' is frowned upon, and will likely soon be labeled 'terrorism' if it isn't already. Rendition can't be that far behind. Nevertheless, it is still easier to survive being marginalized in the social discourse arena. But quite impossible to do so in science which has become a big budget operation requiring institutional support and endorsement.
That abuse of science, the "incestuous science", in the present vaccination drive for the swine flu forms the underpinning of this Note on Vaccination which expresses a unique concern that is still largely outside the many paradigms of concern expressed by many of the nay-sayers in their own formulations of why they are against the swine flu vaccine, or against vaccination in general:
'My immediate concern is the latter which includes an entire gamut of political abuse, from eugenics to GMO foods to epidemics – which harvests justifications and techniques from science and technology – all for population culling and elimination. It's akin to abusing Islam to create the fabled enemy of 'Islamism' for a war-making agenda – whether or not there is some inherent deficiency in the religion is irrelevant and orthogonal to its political abuse for "imperial mobilization".' — The Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say 'No' to the Swine Flu Vaccine
The aforementioned concern is even more eloquently voiced by the polymath Spanish Benedictine nun at San Benet of Montserrat's Monastery in Barcelona, Dr. Teresa Forcades, with the peerless credentials: Physician specialist in Internal Medicine, Ph.D. in Public Health, and Degree in Theology from Harvard University.
And that full spectrum abuse of science, the "incestuous science" in the service of empire, is the crucial heart of the matter today.
The fact that we see it occurring repeatedly across the board – from the government sanctioned official but absurd NIST report on how the WTC towers catastrophically collapsed into their own footprints on 911, to the fraudulent climate-change science of Global Warming, to the brazenly criminal medical science of swine flu pandemic promulgated by government sanctioned official bodies like WHO and CDC – minimally shows how science is being perversely used in the service of empire. What a tortuous implementation of Sir Francis Bacon's drive to inter-link the pursuit of the nascently emerging Western science in the 17th century with imperial funding from the superpower du jour, in order to more effectively deploy the harvest of science in the service of humanity (and of course empire): "human knowledge and human power meet in one"!
It is immensely interesting to also note in passing that Noam Chomsky insisted on 911 science be peer-reviewed before he'd read the papers written by Jones et. al. And when it finally got published by a maverick online journal (I sent a thank you note to them), my dear professor Noam Chomsky – to whom I will forever remain indebted as the teacher who actually taught me to think critically – insisted that he will wait for other credible scientists in that domain to critique it before reading and/or offering his own opinion as he was not a domain expert in how tall buildings collapse, and that letting the domain experts sort it out first in peer-reviewed journals is the acceptable process of science!
What a new born baby octogenarian – or perhaps Noam Chomsky had understood rather well that going against the grain on 911 would be severely career limiting for any technical domain expert, and thus it was, and perhaps still is, safe to argue in this way? A specious red herring? Or merely intellectual convolutions to continue echoing empire's sacred-cow axioms of "imperial mobilization" while appearing to challenge its deadly expression?
Does it take a domain expert, or some ordinary un co-opted commonsense observation to realize that this free-fall symmetrical collapse into its own footprint suspiciously looks like controlled demolition, and that this and this catastrophic instantaneous powdering of tall buildings into fine dust are hardly the gravity collapse of a standing steel structure due to fire; never mind the fact that no response from empire's imposing air defense systems on that ill-fated day when the hijacking drama was unfolding smacks of active collusion at the highest levels of the US military high-command; and therefore, minimally, to pin 911 on Osama Bin Laden based on some newly discovered faith in officialdom after a life of dissent is profoundly anti-intellectual?
All are empire's own multifaceted instruments of public relations, as well as its "approved science", and its "approved dissent". The political abuse of science to serve hegemonic agendas is a monumental scam, and Dr. Ball's following terse expression is very perceptive:
"… [in the debate about the hockey-stick] these people are all publishing together, and they all peer-reviewing each other's literature. So there is a classic example of [incestuous self-reinforcement] … why are they pushing the peer-review issue so big, why are they saying well, you haven't published peer-review … and now of course we realize is because they have control over their own process. That's clearly exposed in these emails. On a global scale it is frightening…. they control the IPCC. They manipulated that … The IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto Protocol, the Coopenhagen Accord, and so on!" Minute 1:20, Tim Ball, Op. cit.
Anecdotally, I will recall for you some interesting personal experiences of the abuse of peer review by individuals. In the late 1980s when I worked as a development engineer in a computer company, my new office-mate, a recent Ph.D. from a very reputed top school in the United States and only 25 years of age (he celebrated his 25th birthday after his first day at work), had published almost 20 or so papers on the operating system he had worked on for his Ph.D. thesis. In any case it was a large number of papers, I may be forgetting the precise number. So, one day, having nothing better to do, I read all his published papers that were listed on his imposing resume – there was no web at the time, and only hardcopy of these papers existed which he fortunately had in the office. I also read his Ph.D. thesis. And I was very puzzled. 90% of the content in the refereed and conference papers was identical. To my mind, the differences didn't warrant new papers, only perhaps separate sections, and at most 2 or 3 papers. So I asked him about it. He candidly told me that this is how the game is played, and that those who didn't play it, paid the price. This scholarship inflation is indeed rewarded with academic respectability, not just in academe, but in corporate research as well. A few years later, another graduate student in computer science developed a fancy piece of software to automatically synthesize an entirely gibberish but plausible sounding paper in context by scanning words and sentences in already published papers, and submitted his genius to one or more peer-reviewed journals.
My god – one of them actually published it. I do not recall the full details now, except that the gallant chap also sent in a note informing them how the paper was created. And as I vaguely remember, there was both amusement, and minor discussion on the poor peer-review process by over-worked professors, but no major scandal. Obviously! And lastly, a few years ago when I briefly consulted for a big-shot scientist in Pakistan, when he introduced himself to me by saying he had 600 publications to his credit, I recalled for him that possibly the mightiest physicist of the 20th century after Einstein, the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman of Caltech, had only 37 or so published papers, and that how did he get so many. I can't even remember this inflated egoist's answer today!
All this isn't "incestuous science" per se and is perhaps more akin to tolerable noise in any system. But it does show that the glorified peer review is far from being the pristine scientific process that it is made out to be, and that people will be people, and when quantity of publications is incentivized, they will routinely find clever ways to harness the process for their own narrow interests which may have nothing to do with the science per se in no less measure than the ruling establishment.
The same arguments are easily extended to the examination and granting of patents, fancifully called the intellectual property rights. All of my patent filings for instance were primarily a business decision made by the corporation to create a patent portfolio as a currency of barter in patent infringement lawsuits. I doubt very much that the patent examiners anywhere have the wherewithal to know what is prior art and what isn't, as all engineering and technology fields have exponentially grown since the concept of patenting was invented as a business tool to allow entrepreneurs to capitalize on their product inventions for a limited time. That has today transformed into the abhorrent WTO extortion racket to mainly prey upon the developing nations!
Dear M, returning to the Machiavellian political science which lends so much insight into almost everything man endeavors, it is almost as if my favorite science fiction novelist, the galaxologist Isaac Asimov, was vicariously projecting Hari Seldon's psycho-historical calculations for guiding the course of "future-history" of his fictional empire on the vast intergalactic canvas, as a profound clue to mankind to get them to forensically comprehend manufactured reality. Just like Plato had done in his Myth of the Cave, 2500 years earlier.
People in the West tend to go all gaga when an obvious conspiracy is finally revealed to be true, as in this case of climategate. But worse, many of them tend to focus on its how-whiz minutiae when the iron is hot instead of doing something useful with it, and then simply move-on deeming the scandal to be a one-of case of some misguided policy gone awry or case of individual corruption. And at best, a nefarious but myopic agenda which is not related to any other agenda of the establishment. This armchair anguish also remained the case with the revealing of the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s which momentarily riveted the attention of the American public. No one at the time questioned why was America criminally assisting the two neighborly countries of Iran and Iraq to fight each other to death; only that it did this in some non-kosher way. The exact same thing is once again transpiring in climategate. Few are focussing on connecting the dots towards a bigger picture – deliberately missing the Zen of political science.
This circumscribing of the imagination in the erudite Western intellect is almost as if the Western mind has been calculatingly indoctrinated into the notion that the pursuit of sciences is a pristine, highly objective endeavor of incredibly moral supermen devoid of any political agendas in promulgating the objectives of empire that funds it. It is akin to the Eastern mind long having become attuned to the notion of predestination because of which it silently continues to suffer its fate at the hands of its own oligarchy. Each half of the world, apparently, are wont to sacrifice different half of their brain at the altar of their respective feudal priestdoms.
The military-industrial complex of America for instance is entirely scientist driven at its technological forefronts. This is plainly visible and openly conducted, and therefore, not one sane person in the world would deny that such science and technology pursuits entirely serve the interests of Western hegemony.
But when caught in a lie for executing far more diabolical objectives of the hectoring hegemons in circuitous ways – because these may not be articulated or pursued so openly even when it is not a state-secret and the information is available to anyone – the Western intellect suddenly fails! How could these scientists possibly have been working for the establishment's own Machiavellian agendas – it must surely be that they were merely personally corrupted at best, or just did "poor science" in an incestuous cabal. The "lone-gunman" theory of sciencegate!
In making better guns and bigger bombs, bioweapons and econometrics, and other assorted technetronic-gadgets for empire that enables backing its MacDonald franchises with McDonnell Douglas, since all of it is an open enterprise, no one doubts that scientists and technicians work for empire and are generously rewarded for it. In fact, it is even bandied about with great eloquence:
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." — Thomas L. Friedman, A Manifesto for the Fast World, NYT March 28, 1999
But to make the multi-pronged complex architecture of diabolical control of humanity possible, well, that just can't be. That is just conspiracy theory! So let's just narrowly concentrate only on the facts that have been disclosed … like why the sum of squares goes negative in the source code of climategate!
As is amply evident over the past few weeks since the climategate scandal broke, almost all people of scientific acumen continue to focus on the fascinating mechanics of how Mann et. al., said their "gun" worked, but it actually didn't! So bad-bad-scientists. Let's just clean up the climate sciences of its rotten eggs and move-on. This attitude is clearly visible in almost all the stellar conversations on climategate in cyberspace even among the academics. Especially among the academics! See for instance this open letter by Prof. Judith Curry, and her editorial.
This tunnel vision isn't limited to climategate however, but permeates all imperial mantras the most prominent and most deadly to date of course being the "Global War on Terror". I look forward to the day when similar email revelations will show how 911 was an inside job and how any challenge to the official narrative was to be suppressed, including in science publications and only the Popular Science version which elaborated on the NIST science was to be promulgated. At that time, all the uber intelligent beings will once again similarly become fixated with the minutiae of the obvious. But yesterday, as today, when boldly asserting so by influential men and women of science could surely have derailed "imperial mobilization" to Afghanistan and Iraq thus preventing all the horrendous crimes against humanity which followed, it remained a conspiracy theory of the lunatic fringes who saw gods in the sky.
My all time favorite physicist of Pakistan, the MIT literate prodigy, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, the scholar who contributed his own punditry to the mantra of Islamism in dialectical penmanship to Daniel Pipes' in erudite prose like "Between Imperialism and Islamism" and "The Threat From Within", once wrote me in response to my trying to get him to see that Bin Laden couldn't have done 911 as WTC collapses looked like controlled demolition and that he, Hoodbhoy, was failing to connect all the dots which clearly lead to puppetmasters, saying something to the effect: ~ "remember how our ancestors connected the dots in the sky and saw all those shapes as their gods…".
So henceforth, Pervez Hoodbhoy judiciously avoided connecting the dots lest he too be misled into seeing things that aren't there, while of course finding it infinitely pleasurable to continue echoing the mantras and axioms of empire. Not only MIT trained scientists, but apparently almost all major scientists and scholars of any IVY and other lofty pedigree are pregnant with imperial wisdom in that way.
These brilliant scholars only see puppetshows, and painstakingly describe them, but never go towards uncovering the forces which drive them. Since I have already described their salient characteristics in detail before, let me just reproduce it here as its worthwhile to relate that to the topic at hand:
None of them betray that they possess long term memories, or any comprehension of even recent history that can be contextualized to the present.
None of them seem to have heard of 'covert-ops' and 'black-ops'; none of them have read the shrewd analysis of the imperial thinkers themselves of the necessity of real mobilizing pretexts such as the "New Pearl Harbor" and "clear and present danger" as otherwise "Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization".
None of them apparently understand that covert-ops while they are operational and active, are meant to be secretive and mendacious, which is why they are called 'covert', and that their unraveling necessitates perceptively seeing beyond what's being deliberately made manifest and what's being insisted upon as 'two plus two equals five' – for hard receipts for them will only be uncovered by historians through the famed declassification process post faits accomplis.
Thus all of these 'astute' thinkers, commentators, and media pundits none too miraculously reach the same minimal and common conclusion space regardless of their own starting thesis or the circuitous routes taken in their analysis and speculations, that at the bare minimum, the scourge of 'fundamentalism' and 'militant Islam' needs to be checked with renewed commitment in the global 'war on terror', or else no one in the 'civilized world' would remain safe from these antiquated Taliban style 'evil jihadis' and 'al qaeeda'. That root of terror has now been successfully showcased as residing in Pakistan – the 'Terror Central'!
It is indeed deemed a 'clash of civilizations', not of the East and the West titans, but of 'radical antiquated militant Islam' and the rest of civilized humanity! That "Today [even] if one could wipe America off the map of the world with a wet cloth, mullah-led fanaticism will not disappear", as the distinguished native-informant par excellence, the world class physicist Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, has conclusively observed in his latest analysis of the matter in "Preventing More Lal Masjids", and which he had earlier explored in great analytical depth in "The Threat From Within". And none [too] surprisingly, echoing the same mantra of Pakistan becoming a 'terrorist sanctuary' [as] CNN a few days ago [which] aired the documentary by Nick Richardson "Pakistan – The Threat Within". The unanimity of this conclusion space is scary to say the least – at least for us Pakistanis.
It would appear that the world's leading thinkers, journalists, newsmedia, scholars and leaders "united we stand" that Pakistan poses a serious threat to world peace! Not the hectoring hegemons who have cleverly utilized 911 "to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers" in what only appears to be another 'operation canned goods' or the 'Reichstag fire' or the much coveted 'New Pearl Harbor' to achieve the 'transformation of [its] forces' to achieve 'full spectrum dominance' over the planet and outerspace, but my wretched lands of the ancient Indus valley, and my wretched peoples – we are the world threat! — Saving Pakistan from Synthetic 'Terror Central' – Orchestration of 'Lal Masjid' – a precursor to 'shock and awe'? July 13-23, 2007.
In the light of what is transpiring in Pakistan today, it is not at all prescient that Pervez Hoodbhoy should have written the following in his ode to Daniel Pipes: "The Threat From Within". In response to it, I had been compelled to write to dissent-specialist Hoodbhoy that had there not been an author's name in that document and someone had asked me to guess who had written it, I would have easily guessed Daniel Pipes. Take a look at the following passage for instance:
'Is Radical Islam Inevitable?
With the large and growing popular sentiment against Musharraf and his army, one cannot rule out the possibility that in the years ahead nuclear armed Pakistan may fall under a neo-Taliban style Salafi-Wahabi-Deobandi leadership allied with conservative senior military leaders. If it does, then Pakistan could become the world's most dangerous state. But, although possible, it is certainly not inevitable – countervailing forces work against this nightmare scenario.' — Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan – The Threat From Within, Pakistan Security Research Unit (PSRU), Brief Number 13, 23rd May 2007.
The crafty Machiavellian omissions present in that saintly expression of fear by uber physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy: "in the years ahead nuclear armed Pakistan may fall under a neo-Taliban style Salafi-Wahabi-Deobandi leadership allied with conservative senior military leaders. If it does, then Pakistan could become the world's most dangerous state", was once again most recently dismantled in Response to 'Wahabization- Salafization of Pakistan and Muslim Ummah : Fighting the Terrorists But Supporting Their Ideology'.
It is respected scholars like these – hiding behind academic freedom of speech and the press – who continually manufacture disinformation as agents, assets, and sayanim of the Mighty Wurlitzer that has caused me to waste so much of my precious time penning the million obvious words on my website to refute their half-truths and Machiavellian spins, for it takes a sentence to construct a lie, considerably more space and time to refute it. Noam Chomsky had himself noted this bit of truism, I am sure realizing its full import for his own writings of crucial omissions. And who has the time to read the long refutations even if someone bothers to diligently offer them, even inviting a riposte? Those being refuted simply ignore it. None may withstand the glare of truth in bright sunlight except those wearing sunglasses!
Omission, the cardinal sin of all totalitarian propagandists when they do purvey half-truths instead of outright full lies – which, as Gary Null put it, "there is an old Jewish saying, a half truth is a full lie" – is even more effective for deception. Aldous Huxley had insightfully noted its impact in the (circa 1946) Preface to his 1931 novel Brave New World:
'The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls and "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.' — Aldous Huxley, pg. 11, Brave New World
And this appears to be how science and scientists are both put to work for echoing the message of empire. Through calculated omissions and retaining the sacred-cow axioms, be it pertaining to hard science, such as in this climatology scam and in the 911 NIST report scam, or related to social science as in the 911 Commission Report scam in order to perpetuate the same political theology of empire while appearing to investigate it.
This modus operandi is what we had been seeing of the Global Warming mantra even before the climategate brouhaha erupted. Awarding of the Nobel Prize to Al Gore only added Public Relations manufacturing to the game. Now, all new born baby pundits may also verifiably glean how the establishment was pulling its invisible strings to fabricate the mantras and the silence about truth. It didn't seem to have worked to the establishment's complete satisfaction this time around – but in how many other cases has it worked, and is still working?
Science is a blatant instrument of empire when it is necessary for it to be so, even when the scientists might proclaim themselves innocent like the new-born baby. Interestingly, or perhaps sadly, many whom I know personally do tend to behave as if they were indeed born yesterday when it comes to comprehending dialectical social engineering! They often proclaim, when their naïveté is challenged, that political science is not their field – as if it requires a Ph.D. to know when is one being taken for a ride on the horns of erudite gibberish!
Are the mighty men and women of science really all that much different from any astute politician? While one may pen much prose to show the reasons for their apparent gullibility, from self-deception to actual collusion, from having accepted or told one lie to the necessity of accepting and/or narrating subsequent lies until the soul is in so deep that it can't extricate itself either mentally or physically, etceteras, the undeniable fact remains that ultimately, both the politician and the scientists are fed from the same coffers and therefore serve the same ruling interests. If they didn't, or if they made waves, they'd be out. Those who ultimately control the purse strings control the research as well as the opinions. The paymasters decide the science that gets funded, and the science which is not pursued. This is most brazenly obvious in the Big-pharma led medical science today that is pushing vaccination, vaccines, and other toxic cocktails to the exclusion of all natural and alternate remedies.
And who doesn't open their mouth wide for the great benefits – both tangibles and intangibles – to be accrued from cooperating with the ruling wisdom, and minimally, for the opportunity to passionately pursue well-funded science in the mainstream and earn all its rewards of respectability and a productive career? Who will jeopardize that?
Only genuine 'conspiracy theorists'!
The entire barrel of apples is rotten to the core! The intellectual corruption of modernity has amazingly seeped into all fabrics of society, almost without exception, from organized religion to organized science and everything in between. And the primemover source of that corruption is namely one today! It is the one with the deepest and most infinitely replenished pockets to spend on all that is vile disguised as philanthropy, the pursuit of science, the humanities, the arts, and for the good of high society. Some of it of course is. But the good is also a veneer to pursue world-domination agendas of those who rule from behind the scenes. A patient but forensic read of Prof. Carroll Quigley's seminal history text of empire "Tragedy and Hope" makes that abundantly clear. In his commentary on that text, the following statement of W. Cleon Skoussen sheds the most pertinent light on the calculated "ignorance of the learned":
'The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were "in on the take" and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' — W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, pg. 6
Oligarchs have of course always existed, and presumably always will. Aldous Huxley noted in his famous talk in 1962 at Berkeley that the rulers getting the serfs to love their own voluntary servitude would be the "ultimate revolution" in social control. That notion, of puppetmasters seeking ways and means to control the populace, is simply empirical.
Indeed, since time immemorial, the kingmaker has been either a god, or the oligarchs. And some uber skeptics even argue that our entire conception of organized religion is an invention too. I don't quite go that far unless the Anunaki arrive from planet Niburu in my own lifetime. Then, I might perhaps concede the obviously compelling argument that all controlling dogmas on planet earth were indeed fabricated instruments of social cohesion and control throughout our social evolution, and which, going forward in our continued evolution according to the prevailing tenets of social Darwinianism, is to be replaced by Adam Wieshaupt's Secular Humanism. But I doubt I'll ever stop being a theist even then, for I can't imagine believing that we are merely an extended amoeba without a soul! Those who don't need that 'crutch' are certainly mightier than I. They are welcome to their superman state.
And to take on these 'ubermensch' in every generation, and to keep them in check, is the only way to keep the real primemover of evil also in check. That dialectical Manichean struggle automatically enables, and is otherwise also culpable, for all the good or evil that follows.
That is clearly the responsibility of us all. But only the 'idle conspiracy theorists' seem to recognize it, or want to take it on as a moral imperative.
So, I am writing this letter to you, my dear co-conspiracy theorist M, for pondering the profound question: how can this general polymath wisdom of Hari Seldon's political-science be shared with others before it becomes mainstream confirmation; before it becomes fait accompli?
Ex post facto, when it is time for it to become history for public consumption, of course all will see it. Like the old proverb says, something to the effect, they come running with the news after all the barbers in town already know! And they laugh their way to their bank penning their narratives, with lofty prizes and prestigious titles awarded them by the very instruments of empire they appear to hector before their flock.
My teacher Noam Chomsky, is perhaps the most egregious example of this. The New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive". Indeed he is. His imposing books are undeniably the most exhaustive compilation of the crimes of empire. But in critically examining his prolific life of dissent without being snowed in by his voluminous body of work, at least on two of the gravest moments in any ordinary intellectual's life, never mind the "most important intellectual alive", when the most urgent need of the hour was to publicly show bold skepticism for the narratives of power, Noam Chomsky persisted in exactly echoing the core sacred-cow axioms of empire. From the officially promulgated lone-gunman theory of JFK assassination, to the officially promulgated 19 hijackers theory of 911, he cleverly echoed the sacred-cow axioms of empire even in his dissent!
While Noam Chomsky has eruditely accused empire of manufacturing consent by deceiving the public, I strongly suspect him of manufacturing dissent to effectively assist the empire at the most crucial times in the same. To me, the New York Times awarding that title to an intellectual like him is akin to awarding the Nobel Peace prize to Jimmy Carter – as both a reward for a job well done for empire, and to help fabricate a dissent-chief for the malcontents resisting empire. The epithet proudly adorns Noam Chomsky's many books and has surely helped him acquire a prestige which even prompted a notable rebel leader like President Chavez of Venezuela, to wave one of his books from the United Nations as the epitome of moral resistance to empire.
So I ask you in conclusion dear M, is there any intellectual discourse at all possible to explain all this to others, and have one see not only its palpable wisdom, but also the categorical imperatives that automatically spring from it, which, if one voluntarily shirks responsibility for, one acquires the blood of an accomplice on one's hands?
Or, would only the Charles Dickens' character, Madame Defarge, with her guillotine basket, provide the right motivation to enable one to call reality the way it is in this age of atheistic relativism when spiritualism is dead even for many a pious savant still on the prayer mat?
Best wishes,
Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Source URL:http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html
Mirror URL: https://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/letter-to-a-co-conspiracy-theorist-reflections-on-modernity-climategate-peer-review-and-science-in-the-service-of-empire-by-zahir-ebrahim/
Source PDF (no video version): http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate-nov302009i.pdf
Source PDF (original version): http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate-nov302009.pdf
The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by countless publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license and use of copyrighted material at http://humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
First Published: 11/30/2009 12:00:06 8897 | Last updated (no video) 06/17/11 10:00:05 9159
Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, & Science in the Service of Empire 26/26


text:
Choosing a career is hard enough — but what if you've made some wrong turns along the way?
"It's never too late to reassess your professional life and straighten out your course," says John M. McKee, author of "21 Ways Women in Management Shoot Themselves in the Foot" (Wheatmark, $15.95). "You need to be asking yourself, 'What do I want to be doing 10 years from now?' So many people just look at an immediate fix rather than the big picture."
So how can you avoid taking any missteps while forging your path to success?
"The biggest mistake I see professionals make is when they try to move forward without a firm plan in place," says Helen Latimer, a business consultant and co-author with McKee of the book "The Plan: Personal Balance, Career Success, Financial Strength" ($14.95, theplansite.com). "Women in particular will often let others manage their career. If you organize your own goals, it means you have to be honest about your wants and hopes for your future, and sometimes that can be difficult."
Even if you're satisfied with your goals, experts say many people have a problem taking credit for a job well done.
"We don't celebrate ourselves," says Judith Wright, a bestselling author and educator. "We think it's boasting or the ego if we give ourselves credit for our accomplishments, but it's so important to let people know what you're doing."
"Men are often quick to give themselves a pat on the back, but not women," says McKee. "They will give credit to the team, but rarely will they stand up and say 'yes, it was me!' "
And don't be afraid to check in with your boss.
"One big no-no is assuming your boss is aware of your every move," says McKee. "They don't have time to stop by your cubicle every day. They need to be reminded of what you're working on and you should never shy away from keeping them up to speed on your accomplishments."
"Plan a monthly lunch or a steady time to meet with your superior," says Wright. "It's not bugging. It's doing them a favor by communicating what you're up to. When people feel like they are part of what you're achieving, they are more proud of your success."
Here are some more tips from our experts to ensure you're on track for optimal career success:
Ask for help. "Often we think that this is a sign of weakness," says Latimer. "We need to set up a support system. Whether it's getting groceries or asking someone to take some of your work load, reach out and know there are people willing to be there for you."
It's never too late to get started. "I often encounter people out of work who are in their 50s and 60s," explains McKee. "I always point them to Clint Eastwood. He didn't start directing movies until he was 70. Even in our later decades we can take a longer look and reinvent ourselves."
Don't react out of fear. "Often I see people take just any job rather than taking something that is the right fit," says Latimer. "This means you might be in a position where you are lacking certain skills or have weaknesses. It also might be a short termed situation. If you take the dead end job, it can be more stressful than staying unemployed."
Don't play it safe. "When you're playing it safe, you're playing it small," says Wright. "The ones who are willing to take a risk … those people don't plateau. Our brain is about transformation. It's designed to learn and grow and we aren't using it correctly."


text:
Ford Motor Company's North America Engine Engineering Organization has more than 100 CAD designers and CAE analysts in its Powertrain Analytical Design and Six Sigma (ADSS) department. This team designs all of the powertrain components, including the cylinder block and head, connecting rods and crankshafts, pistons, turbo chargers, and valvetrains.
Develop a robust cantilevered conical joint design, while minimizing cost and time in order to meet functional targets.
Using Abaqus for CATIA (AFC) for structural analysis and Isight for process automation and optimization, the engineering team at Ford is able to develop an automated Design of Experiments process to eliminate design inefficiencies and allow them to complete their analysis in four days rather than an estimated seventy days.
Utilizing AFC and Isight, the Ford engineering team was able to achieve their project goals in a fraction of the time it would have otherwise taken. Their initial time investment in completely automating the testing process will save them countless weeks of development time in the future.


text: Nope, unfortunately. Simon Labrecque -----Original Message----- From: Russ Whitaker [mailto:russ at ashlandhome.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:09 PM To: Simon Labrecque Cc: 'ron minnich'; 'Lu, Yinghai'; linuxbios at linuxbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Support for recent chipset and powerful desktop CPU On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Simon Labrecque wrote: > I'm asking because obviously I don't know the answer, but can't a serial > port on a PCI card be used? Wouldn't that be simpler than through-USB > debugging? > > If not, well I'll find a new board, but I like the fact that this board is > already passively cooled (a requirement, or at least a strong plus, in our > product), is quite cheap and from a reputable company. > > If someone has a board to suggest, please jump in. > > Simon Labrecque > > -----Original Message----- > From: ron minnich [mailto:rminnich at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:17 PM > To: Lu, Yinghai > Cc: Simon Labrecque; linuxbios at linuxbios.org > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Support for recent chipset and powerful desktop CPU > > we are going to have to learn USB debug port. This problem is not going > away. > Does the board have a parallel (printer) port? Just an idea Russ


text:
Vacation time is on! So are you going for a hill station this vacation, leaving your house empty ? If you are, don't leave it unguarded.A vacant home is the most prone to burglary. Taking a few preventive steps before leaving can save you from being a victim of burglary while you are away.
Avoid Social Media Updates- These days we have a habit of posting where we are and our schedule on social media. But this also gives a clear idea to the possible burglar that the house is empty. Even if you do post, keep it private, share with selected people only. Do not let the world know about it.
Neighbour Watch- Ask your neighbours to keep an eye on your home while you are away. If you trust a friend who lives nearby, give him the spare keys to your home. You can also give him your car keys and ask to take the car for a short spin. This way, if anyone has intentions of breaking in, he would think twice before doing so.
Put Valuables in a Locker- If you are going for a very long period, it would be a good idea to keep all the valuables in bank locker. Or if you have a safe you can rely on, put the valuables in it before leaving for the holiday.


text:
Dog Events in Hemet, CA
There aren't any upcoming pet friendly events in Hemet listed on BringFido at this time. If you happen to know of one, post it here! You can browse all pet friendly events in California to find something nearby, or get a discounted rate on pet friendly hotels in Hemet.
There are no pet friendly events matching your query. Try changing your search options.
Fetching results...


text:
Asthma Resource Toolkit - Starter Guide
ACF's Region IV developed the Asthma Resource Toolkit- Starter Guide, in partnership with the southeast regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through a demonstration pilot in two targeted Georgia counties (Bibb and Lowndes). The Toolkit was designed to:
- increase awareness and educate pre-school staff and families about environmental health risk factors to young children; and
- facilitate access to resources that could be integrated easily into ongoing program activities.
The Toolkit has been widely disseminated across the country and rolled out as a national model by Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Learn more about about asthma and environmental triggers on ACF's Office of Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center website: www.eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov.


text:
Join us for a Big Brick on Sunday April 15th at 8:30am at Dip Deep 3385 Yonge St. for a 2 hour ride followed by a 30 min group run.
$40 for a single session.
What is a Big Brick? A Big Brick is a group long ride and run off the bike.
Why do a Big Brick? Brick training is essential to the success of a triathlete and maintaining that sensation of biking than running in the off-season will help you in the race season. Also the extra endurance on the bike, once monthly will help progress your training without taxing the body.
This workout will be a z2/z3 (endurance) level workout on the bike. The run will also be a z2/z3 (endurance) level. These are power based workouts so all levels are welcomed and encouraged. You will train at your own level.
Class may be cancelled if less than 4 participants are registered 24 hours in advance of the session.
Non members must fill out the following two waivers and send to email@example.com prior to the clinic.
TO Waiver, TTC Waiver
The Toronto Triathlon Club is sanctioned by Triathlon Ontario.Contact us: email@example.com
© Copyright 2015 All Rights Reserved Toronto Triathlon Club


text:
For many, New Years Eve offers an opportunity to forget the past and make a clean start. But instead of leaving everything up to fate, why not enjoy a meal to increase ones good fortune? There are a great variety of foods that are believed to be lucky and improve the odds that next year will be a great one. Traditions vary from culture to culture, but there are striking similarities in what's consumed in different areas of the world: The six major categories of auspicious foods are grapes, greens, fish, pork, legumes, and cakes guaranteed to make for a happy new year, or at least a happy tummy. Whatever your favourite recipe, wishing you all a Scrumpdillyicious New Year!
New Years Champagne Cocktail
Serves 2
6 drops bitters
2 sugar cubes
2 oz Cognac
8 oz chilled Champagne
Drop the bitters onto each sugar cube and let soak in, then place each sugar cube into a Champagne flute. Add the Cognac, and top up with Champagne, and wish all a Nouvelles Années Heureuses!