Sunday, April 29, 2007
Here is a photo of all the neighborhood kids. Grant, Brock, Kirsten, Jaeylen, Henry and Josh. They had quite the time tonight, the only thing missing was a jar with lightening bugs in it.
Here is a little experiment I am doing on some weeds in our beds. I pulled three thistle weeds: on the left I did nothing to the stem, in the middle I poured some bleach on the stem and below right I squirted it with Weed B Gon. Above the plant (which I did nothing to) is some thistle that I obviously did not pull but which I put Weed B Gon on. I'm interested to see what kills weeds the best and whether you should pull them or leave them in and squirt them.
The neighbors laughed at my chimeneo or however you spell it but I'll tell you, this thing throws out some heat and burns a piece of wood for quite some time.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
I got back from Springfield, IL tonight. It was a long way to go but worth it in the end. I attended the Reds v. Cardinals today at Busch Stadium, a 12:10 businessman special. $50 gets you a 9th row seat but it was almost in the outfield. $8.75 gets you a draft beer. The stadium was nice but there was one thing I really didn't like: yellow mustard. Not ballpark or stadium or brown but just plain yellow mustard that Sam's Club sells in bulk. I've now attended games in the following cities:
Cincinnati - old and new stadium
Cleveland - old and new
Pittsburgh - old and new
Boston
Chicago (Cubs)
New York (Yankees)
Detroit - old and new
San Francisco
Philadelphia - old
St. Louis - old and new
San Diego - old
I need to kick it up a notch.
Cincinnati - old and new stadium
Cleveland - old and new
Pittsburgh - old and new
Boston
Chicago (Cubs)
New York (Yankees)
Detroit - old and new
San Francisco
Philadelphia - old
St. Louis - old and new
San Diego - old
I need to kick it up a notch.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
I haven't posted in a while but I have excuses, I've been busy. First I went to Myrtle Beach for two nights and three days to golf. It was fun, I went with some work people and former Senator Gardner. Played fairly well considering how bad I played at the end of last year.
Tomorrow I'm off to Springfield, IL for work. The only good thing about my trip is that I'm going to catch the Cardinals-Reds game in St. Louis on Thursday. It's a 12:10 businessman special so its perfect for me although I won't be able to stay the whole game and catch my flight. I'm excited, I haven't been to the new Busch Stadium.
Tomorrow I'm off to Springfield, IL for work. The only good thing about my trip is that I'm going to catch the Cardinals-Reds game in St. Louis on Thursday. It's a 12:10 businessman special so its perfect for me although I won't be able to stay the whole game and catch my flight. I'm excited, I haven't been to the new Busch Stadium.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Add the Tragically Hip to the list of concerts I've attended. Never heard of them? I hadn't either until I met Sarah. They are a Canadian band and her favorite. They played at the House of Blues in Cleveland last Saturday night. I got some tickets through a friend because it was sold out; the HOB only seats around 1200 people and this band is pretty popular in Canada so I think a lot of Canucks came down to see them.
We ate dinner at the Foundation Room, a private club within the HOB that is one of my favorite places in Cleveland. They have around 8 Foundation Rooms around the country and I've been to the ones in New Orleans and Las Vegas (where I had my bachelor party). I'm not a member but have access through ClubCorp, which the Capital Club is a part of. Anyway, I always describe it as being like the coolest, most exclusive club in NYC, real dark, couches everywhere and the staff treats you like a celebrity. They have a bunch of little private rooms that you can hang out in. The restaurant, above the bar, is incredible and I've had some great meals there. Sarah was impressed.
Our seats were in the front row of the balcony, about 50 feet from the band. The Hip rocked althought I couldn't understand any of the words to their songs. We had to leave a little bit early to get home, my sister was watching the boys and there was a wicked snow storm which caused us to be even later than we intended. All in all, a fun night.
We ate dinner at the Foundation Room, a private club within the HOB that is one of my favorite places in Cleveland. They have around 8 Foundation Rooms around the country and I've been to the ones in New Orleans and Las Vegas (where I had my bachelor party). I'm not a member but have access through ClubCorp, which the Capital Club is a part of. Anyway, I always describe it as being like the coolest, most exclusive club in NYC, real dark, couches everywhere and the staff treats you like a celebrity. They have a bunch of little private rooms that you can hang out in. The restaurant, above the bar, is incredible and I've had some great meals there. Sarah was impressed.
Our seats were in the front row of the balcony, about 50 feet from the band. The Hip rocked althought I couldn't understand any of the words to their songs. We had to leave a little bit early to get home, my sister was watching the boys and there was a wicked snow storm which caused us to be even later than we intended. All in all, a fun night.
Congratulations to Sarah, she picked up her first client today. I know she'll do a great job for them and she is on her way with her new vocation.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Here's a photo of Jack. He is smiling a lot more and cooing, although I really don't know what that sound is. But I've been told there has been some cooing.
Well, the Duke rape case has finally been resolved. I think I posted on this a while back. I simply can not believe that a prosecutor indicted these three kids based on the evidence. It's pretty clear that he did so to help his political future and in my book, that is something that he should pay for the rest of his life. Because let's face it, he tarnished these kids reputations and their lives were changed forever for the worse. Here's my recommendations.
1. Nifong should go to jail, have his legal license taken away from him and pay each of these kids a million bucks out of his own pocket.
2. Duke and the community which condemned the Lacrosse team should apologize immediately and try to make amends. I have no idea how they can do this however; I certainly wouldn't accept an apology for what these kids went through.
3. Duke should pay the three students a million each.
1. Nifong should go to jail, have his legal license taken away from him and pay each of these kids a million bucks out of his own pocket.
2. Duke and the community which condemned the Lacrosse team should apologize immediately and try to make amends. I have no idea how they can do this however; I certainly wouldn't accept an apology for what these kids went through.
3. Duke should pay the three students a million each.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Another irony...
Frozen bay turns otters into easy prey
PORT HEIDEN: Hunger leads animals to seek food on the tundra.
By ALEX deMARBANAnchorage Daily News
An extra-cold winter on the Alaska Peninsula has frozen sea otters out of the bay and pushed them onto the tundra near Port Heiden where they're easy prey for wolves, humans and hunger.
Some of the starving animals -- with ribs showing -- have waddled or belly-slid several miles inland, residents said. Others have been attacked by dogs near houses, killed by villagers for their hides, or died on sea ice where eagles and foxes pick at their remains.
Frozen bay turns otters into easy prey
PORT HEIDEN: Hunger leads animals to seek food on the tundra.
By ALEX deMARBANAnchorage Daily News
An extra-cold winter on the Alaska Peninsula has frozen sea otters out of the bay and pushed them onto the tundra near Port Heiden where they're easy prey for wolves, humans and hunger.
Some of the starving animals -- with ribs showing -- have waddled or belly-slid several miles inland, residents said. Others have been attacked by dogs near houses, killed by villagers for their hides, or died on sea ice where eagles and foxes pick at their remains.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Here's some photos, from top to bottom: Henry finding Jack's Easter basket, Henry playing with Aunt Debbie, Aunt Katie and Henry coloring some eggs and Jack in his bouncy seat. 
An interesting article about global warming from an MIT professor of meteorology who receives no funding from energy companies. Contrary to what some readers think, I am very well versed on this debate. I work for an energy company which has a lot of coal power plants and so I have educated myself on this subject, from both sides and not just what you read in the mainstream media. This article will be in Newsweek; I'm frankly shocked they are printing it. Enjoy another perspective:
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.
Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.
Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Friday, April 06, 2007
As far as my post below goes, I'm sure there is an equally stupid thing that some Republican is doing out there somewhere. A prize for whoever sends me an article about something similar from the other side of the aisle.
I love this story out of Michigan. I love when democrats step up for the little guys...
An iPod for every kid? Are they !#$!ing idiots?
The Detroit News
We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.
No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.
An iPod for every kid? Are they !#$!ing idiots?
The Detroit News
We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.
No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.
Monday, April 02, 2007
I think I need to reword my previous post to clarify that there are others mentioned in the Plain Dealer who I believe are pretenders but that Sarah is not one of them. She will do a great job in her new position and I think she will be very successful at it. Her goal is to earn more money than I make and that's my goal too. Her upside is great and I hope I'm a stay at home dad someday.
From Sunday's Plain Dealer in a story dealing with democrats becoming lobbyists:
Several lobbying firms recruited Sarah Briggs, a respected Democratic Statehouse political operative.
Briggs, who served as political director for the Ohio House Democratic Caucus in 2004 and 2006, starts this week as director of government affairs for the law firm headed by Lee Smith.
Smith, a Democrat, also is a generous contributor to Republicans and earned thousands in legal work through former Republican Attorney General Jim Petro's office.
Smith's firm also is affiliated with Jon Allison, a Republican lobbyist who was chief of staff to former Gov. Bob Taft.
Allison said firms need political diversity to be successful, especially since the GOP still rules the legislature.
"Whether a client wants to get a bill into law or to win a contract with an agency and get it approved by the controlling board, you will have to deal with divided government to get it over the finish line," he said.
Sarah's photo was also in the paper along with some other pretender lobbyists who are trying to cash in on their names.
Several lobbying firms recruited Sarah Briggs, a respected Democratic Statehouse political operative.
Briggs, who served as political director for the Ohio House Democratic Caucus in 2004 and 2006, starts this week as director of government affairs for the law firm headed by Lee Smith.
Smith, a Democrat, also is a generous contributor to Republicans and earned thousands in legal work through former Republican Attorney General Jim Petro's office.
Smith's firm also is affiliated with Jon Allison, a Republican lobbyist who was chief of staff to former Gov. Bob Taft.
Allison said firms need political diversity to be successful, especially since the GOP still rules the legislature.
"Whether a client wants to get a bill into law or to win a contract with an agency and get it approved by the controlling board, you will have to deal with divided government to get it over the finish line," he said.
Sarah's photo was also in the paper along with some other pretender lobbyists who are trying to cash in on their names.
