SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)2/28/2003 6:18:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104181
 
Next race tonight...

Well its actually already tomorrow in New Zealand <G>.

news.bbc.co.uk

s2@thiscouldbethefinalone.com



To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)2/28/2003 6:29:39 PM
From: altair19  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104181
 
lepolv40-50

<sewer man:>

nevermind...I only drive

Altair24m



To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)2/28/2003 6:38:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 104181
 
Some folks may be able to relate to this perspective...

Patriotism and the Flag
by Bill Moyers
Published on Friday, February 28, 2003 by NOW with Bill Moyers

I put the flag in my lapel tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this flag doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo - the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. And during the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's Little Red Book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomatic skill. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.

What do you think?

-Bill Moyers
NOW with Bill Moyers
Friday, February 28, 2003

commondreams.org



To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)3/1/2003 12:06:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104181
 
Billionaire swine and Kiwi catastrophe

By Hunter S. Thompson
Page 2 columnist
espn.go.com


The Super Bowl happened less than three weeks ago, but to football junkies like me, it feels like 22 years. I have blocked it out of my memory now, although on some nights I have agonizing flashbacks that cause me to sweat and babble in my sleep, as if a roach had crawled into my spleen to die.



These moments of total recall always leave me weak. I see Rich Gannon hurling air-balls up for grabs, staggering backwards in the grip of huge speedy brutes -- rangy 300-pound sprinters who run 40 yards in 40 seconds and love to hurt people, especially MVP quarterbacks.

The vaunted Tampa Bay pass rush shredded the massive Raider offensive linemen, leaving Gannon helpless to throw or even think. It was pitiful.

The whole Raider Nation was flogged and humiliated on world-wide TV like a gang of sissies. By halftime, I felt stupid and wrong in every way. It was like dying and going to hell.

Ah, but never mind that wretched game. It is a thing of the past now, for most people. We will banish it from our brains forever, along with the myth of the mighty Oakland Raiders, who lived and died on their once-proud passing game. The Raiders are dead -- long live the Raiders.

Right. And so much for that, eh? For at least two weeks, I thought the lopsided whipping in San Diego was the most painful moment I have ever witnessed in the pain-riddled world of sports…. But not for long. Last Friday, a new champion emerged, and you didn't even have to be a sports fan to appreciate it.

Oakland is, after all, only one city in one country.

The nightmare happened 10,000 miles away in New Zealand, the sailing capital of the world, where a whole nation got their heads handed to them in the feverishly awaited America's Cup races in the treacherous waters of the Southern Pacific ocean. It was a hideous thing to watch, even as an ignorant quasi-curious foreigner.

I am not a yachting person, by nature, but I have just enough experience on the sea under sail to feel a certain nostalgia for it when I see a big white racing yacht heeled over at cruising speed on the ocean, and I can still tie a mean bowline knot on just about anything in less than 10 seconds.

That is only one of the life-long benefits of putting in some time on the sea, jerking big ropes and lines and sheets and extremely heavy sails around for 18 hours a day with your hands bleeding and all your toes ruptured from sliding around on the deck. Even in retrospect, it is a harsh and painful life, punctuated every once in a while with moments of staggering beauty and wild adventure.

There is magic, for instance, in sailing out of a foreign harbor at dawn, gliding in utter silence across the water and heading out to sea for eight long days and nights on the ocean with no engine and no radio. It is madness, by any nautical wisdom. Only a fool or a desperate man would even think about it ...

... which, of course, didn't faze us.

Yes, the risks were too high and our chances of reaching the next island by dead-reckoning and celestial navigation with no engine and no radio were about one in 44. Still, there were, of course, at least three compelling reasons for getting out of that country immediately, but there is no need to discuss them right now.

So let's get back to the tragedy that happened last week in New Zealand when the defending world champion Kiwi boat blew up on the first leg of the first race, for no explainable reason. ... It was inconceivable. Utterly out of the question. Watching it happen in real time was like seeing the Yankees lose 65-3 in the opening game of the World Series.

The next race on the following day was even worse, ripping the heart out of the entire Kiwi nation and putting them down 2-0 in the best-of-nine series. It was a truly heart-breaking defeat, coming as it did in the final 30 seconds of a three-hour race when they blew a comfortable lead and stupidly allowed themselves to be caught from behind by a slower boat and beaten by a boat-length in a spectacular race by the billion-dollar Swiss yacht, crewed mainly by the same gang of Kiwis who brought the Cup to New Zealand for the first time in 153 years and made them national heroes and undisputed world champions.

They jumped ship about three years ago, when they decided to "test the market" for their special skills and found it so rewarding that they decided to turn pro for real and hire themselves out to the highest bidder -- which turned out to be a Swiss billionaire named Berterelli, who craved the Cup so desperately that he decided to spend whatever it might cost him to hire the finest sailors in the world and seize the prize for Europe immediately from it's temporary home in Auckland. Nothing would stand in his way.

And, of course, the best crew in the world happened, back then, to be from New Zealand. Now they sail for Switzerland, a land-locked nation with no access to any sea. ... That is only one of the distinct advantages of being a billionaire in this world. They can indulge any billionaire whim that pops into their minds, regardless of cost -- and that is what happened in Auckland: A crew of hired mercenaries returned to New Zealand and wiped out the home team on their own turf with out even breaking a sweat.

Whoops. I see I'm wandering off track here and becoming exhausted and unable to focus -- probably because the Cup Races will almost certainly be over this weekend; no team has ever won the Cup after losing the first three races. The Kiwis are finished. They will lose five straight.

And so what, eh? I am into basketball now, keeping a keen eye on Louisville and Kentucky, both locks for NCAA Tourney in March. Hot damn. Yes Sir. That should be enough action to cure any junkie, and I already crave it. Football is dead, long live basketball.

________________________________________________
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was born and raised in Louisville, Ky. His books include "Hell's Angels," "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72," "The Great Shark Hunt," "The Curse of Lono," "Generation of Swine," "Songs of the Doomed," "Screwjack," "Better Than Sex," "The Proud Highway," "The Rum Diary," and "Fear and Loathing in America." His latest book, "Kingdom of Fear," has just been released. A regular contributor to various national and international publications, Thompson now lives in a fortified compound near Aspen, Colo. His column, "Hey, Rube," appears regularly on Page 2.



To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)3/1/2003 12:32:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 104181
 
Message 18643628



To: elpolvo who wrote (24016)3/1/2003 12:33:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 104181
 
Rebuked on Global Warming

Lead Editorial
The New York Times
March 1, 2003


Nothing so far has shamed President Bush into adopting a more aggressive policy toward the threat of global warming. He has been denounced by mainstream scientists, deserted by his progressive friends in industry and sued by seven states. Still he clings stubbornly to a voluntary policy aimed at merely slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, despite an overwhelming body of evidence that only binding targets and a firm timetable will do the job.

Now there is fresh criticism from sources Mr. Bush may find harder to ignore. Last week Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Bush's most loyal ally in the debate over Iraq, gently but firmly rebuked the president for abandoning the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and for succumbing to the insupportable notion that fighting global warming will impede economic growth.

That was followed by another salvo, from an expert panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences to assess Mr. Bush's proposals for further research into climate change. Though polite, the panel could hardly have been more contemptuous. It described Mr. Bush's plan as a redundant examination of issues that had largely been settled, bereft of vision, executable goals and timetables — in short, little more than a cover-up for inaction.

Of the two rebukes, Mr. Blair's may have been the more painful. The prime minister said he regarded environmental degradation in general and climate change in particular as "just as devastating in their potential impact" as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. "There will be no genuine security," he said, "if the planet is ravaged." He also pledged to cut Britain's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by midcentury, a longer-range but still a far more ambitious timetable than Kyoto's target of an average 5 percent reduction by industrialized nations by 2012.

Mr. Blair's speech obviously served the political purpose of distancing himself from the White House, at least on this issue, at a time when many of his countrymen have criticized him for his support of Mr. Bush on Iraq. It should also be noted that, in strictly economic terms, it is easier for Mr. Blair to hold the high ground on this issue than it is for Mr. Bush. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's wrenching decision some years ago to convert Britain's energy base from coal to natural gas, a much cleaner fuel, has already moved Britain closer to Mr. Blair's lofty targets than it otherwise would have been.

Nevertheless, the prime minister's approach is everything Mr. Bush's is not. It conveys a sense of urgency, calls for common sacrifice and offers a coherent vision of how to get from here to there. It is, in short, a recipe for the leadership that until not too long ago the world had been looking to America to provide.

nytimes.com