.
I confess, ever since I was in school I was hopelessly hooked on science and math among other things. Even moreso where the two disciplines came together in physics. Albert Einstein was one of my heroes, not just because of his pioneering work in physics but because of his interests, philosophy and views on the world.
When Einstein would say he did not know where the ideas for his major works came from it sent chills down my spine. If he didn't know, then he must have been inspired by a higher source. Of course I had to keep this interest hidden for the most part in high school in order to stay as "cool" as possible because dating girls and talking about Einstein might ruin my reputation.
Through a most peculiar set of circumstances I became close friends with Maggie Sanders, the outrageous daughter of Colonel Harlan Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame. Maggie was into many aspects of science in America and considered many prominent Nobel prize winners in science her friends. She had opersonally corresponded with Einstein through his fiend Dr. Otto Nathan, who was sole executor of Einstein's estate.
She shared with me her records with Einstein and Nathan. In addition she inroduced me to the author of the God Particle, Leon Max Lederman (born July 15, 1922), an American experimental physicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. He is Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, USA which is one of the subjects of this story.
So why am I trying to educate you in the particle accelerator atom smasher? To torture you? Not really. But history could be made when these incredible machines reach full power and if they achieve the full capacity believed possible they may forever change science and open doors to fascinating advancements.
Atom Smasher Ramps Up Chase for 'God Particle'
Reuters –
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
The world's largest atom smasher has been upping its game ever since it opened in 2008. Just last month it reached a new milestone - the particle accelerator is now smashing unprecedented numbers of protons into each other during each collision.
The Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland is the world's most state-of-the-art physics experiment. Scientists are crashing matter's building blocks together in the hopes of revealing even smaller building blocks - new undiscovered particles that make up our universe, including the theoretical "God particle," which is thought to give other particles mass.
The accelerator consists of a 17-mile-long (27 kilometers) ring buried underground where powerful magnets guide particles along the circle to pick up speed. At a few points along the loop the beams of particles intersect, and when two particles collide, they convert their enormous kinetic energy into new matter via Einstein's equation E=mc2.
100,000 million protons
The machine started out sending one bunch of protons at a time around the ring in each direction. Now it sends 256 bunches at once. Each of these clusters now contains 100,000 million protons (that's 10^11 protons.)
While that's an improvement, it's only part of the ultimate goal.
"We've got a long way to go," said Mike Lamont, LHC's head of operations. "For this year, we hope to get up to 400 bunches."
The team also plans to boost the collision rate of particles in other ways.
"At the interaction point where bunches pass through each other, we can work on the number of protons in a bunch, the number of bunches, and also the actual size of the beam at that interaction point," Lamont told LiveScience. "At the moment it's focused down to 60 microns - about diameter of human hair. What we can do is reduce that size even more."
The smaller the beam is squashed, the less space the particles will have to move around, and the higher the chances they will run into each other at the collision point.
The more head-on crashes the accelerator creates, the better the chances of one of these events producing something unprecedented - like the Higgs boson, for example.
The 'God particle'
The Higgs, also known mystically as the "God particle," is a theoretical particle that gives other particles their mass. According to the concept, Higgs particles create a field throughout the universe, and when other particles pass through the field, they interact with it and acquire mass.
If LHC can create one of these Higgs particles, it would be a major coup for physicists and would go a long way toward explaining the fundamental nature of matter.
The particle accelerator is probably not producing enough collisions yet to find the Higgs, but even at its current levels, scientific experiments are ongoing.
"All the experiments are working very well - we've certainly given them a good data set this year," Lamont said. "But to find the really interesting stuff like Higgs or supersymmetry, they're going to need a lot more data."
Supersymmetry - another big goal for LHC - is the theory that every particle has a partner particle that has similar properties but a different spin. (The supersymmetric partner of a quark would be a squark, and the partner of the electron is called the selectron - apparently physicists love silly names).
Many of these particles would be very massive and very difficult to detect, but the lightest of them could be created during the crashes in LHC, scientists predict.
Full throttle ahead
To get to the point where Higgs and supersymmetric particles might be discovered, the LHC will likely have to function at peak capacity.
"For us it really is a matter of increasing the amount of data we deliver to the experiments - they just need more, more, more," Lamont said. "They're looking for a very small needle in very large haystack."
The accelerator was designed to run at energy levels of 7 teraelectron volts (TeV), but right now it is only going at half that power - 3.5 TeV.
That's because the cables connecting the superconducting magnets that propel the particles around the LHC ring were built with a flaw that was revealed shortly after the machine was first turned on. In order to ramp up the power, LHC workers will have to shut down the accelerator and make significant repairs to the magnet connectors.
Once that's done and LHC is running at peak design parameters, particles will be colliding at mind-blowing rates.
"Our collision rate eventually will be enormous," Lamont said. "When we get to design, we're talking 600 million events per second."
For comparison, about 6 million particles currently collide per second.
That's still not too shabby. The machine is already more sensitive in some channels than the world's second-largest atom smasher, Fermilab's Tevatron in Batavia, Ill.
.
.
As conference champions take shape and BCS bowl invitations are on the line there are some great match-ups this weekend. Here is what Mike Huguenin, Rivals.com College Football Editor has to say about the weekend line up.
The SEC East title will be decided when South Carolina visits Florida. Auburn can clinch the SEC West if it beats Georgia. Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio State can stay tied atop the Big Ten with Michigan State (which is idle) is they win this week. Oklahoma State travels to reeling Texas trying to stay on top of the Big 12 South standings. There are numerous games in the ACC that will impact the division races. Oregon travels to play California, which is unbeaten at home this season. Boise State and TCU bid to remain unbeaten.
Big Ten Conf All
Michigan State (10) 5-1, 9-1
Wisconsin (6) 4-1, 8-1
Ohio State (8) 4-1, 8-1
Iowa (13) 4-1, 7-2
Penn State 3-2, 6-3
Illinois 3-3, 5-4
Purdue 2-3, 4-5
Michigan 2-3, 6-3
Northwestern 2-3, 6-3
Indiana 0-5, 4-5
Minnesota 0-6, 1-9
Iowa (7-2) at Northwestern (6-3), noon, ESPN
THE BUZZ: Iowa was lucky to come away with a win at Indiana last week and plays host to Ohio State next week. Thus, the Hawkeyes better beware of the Wildcats. Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz got his 100th career victory last week.
THE LINE: Iowa by 10. THE PICK: Iowa 28-23
Indiana (4-5) at Wisconsin (8-1), noon, ESPN2
THE BUZZ: The Badgers, who are looking good for a BCS bid, have won 11 of the past 13 in the series. In its past four meetings with Indiana, Wisconsin has averaged 305.8 rushing yards per game.
THE LINE: Wisconsin by 21.5. THE PICK: Wisconsin 44-20
Penn State (6-3) at Ohio State (8-1), 3:30 p.m., ABC regional/ESPN
THE BUZZ: The Buckeyes, who were off last week, begin a difficult final regular-season stretch; they are at Iowa next week and finish up with a home game against archrival Michigan. Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel is 6-3 against Penn State.
THE LINE: Ohio State by 18. THE PICK: Ohio State 33-17
Southeastern Conf All
East
Florida (24) 4-3, 6-3
South Carolina (22) 4-3, 6-3
Georgia 3-4, 5-5
Kentucky 1-5, 5-5
Vanderbilt 1-5, 2-7
Tennessee 0-5, 3-6
West
Auburn (2) 6-0, 10-0
LSU (5) 5-1, 8-1
Alabama (11) 4-2, 7-2
Arkansas (14) 4-2, 7-2
Mississippi State (17) 3-2, 7-2
Mississippi 1-4, 4-5
Georgia (5-5) at Auburn (10-0), 3:30 p.m., CBS
THE BUZZ: This is the 114th meeting in the Deep South's most-played rivalry. Get this: Through 113 games, the teams are separated by just 56 points (Georgia 1,778, Auburn 1,722). Georgia has won on five of its past seven trips to "The Loveliest Village on the Plains." Meanwhile, everyone in that Village is on pins and needles waiting to hear the next report concerning Cameron Newton.
THE LINE: Auburn by 8.5. THE PICK: Auburn 38-27
Mississippi State (7-2) at Alabama (7-2), 7:15 p.m., ESPN2
THE BUZZ: This will be the 94th meeting in the series -- the campuses are just 75 miles apart -- and the Tide leads 73-18-3, including 39-9-1 in Tuscaloosa. The Tide is coming off a loss to LSU that knocked them out of the running for the national title and also for the SEC West crown.
THE LINE: Alabama by 13.5. THE PICK: Alabama 23-14
South Carolina (6-3) at Florida (6-3), 7:15 p.m., ESPN
THE BUZZ: This is for the SEC East title. Florida leads the series 23-4-3, and the Gators are looking to finish 5-0 against division foes for the third season in a row and for the 11th time since the SEC expanded in 1992. The Gators are going for their 12th SEC East title, the Gamecocks their first.
THE LINE: Florida by 6.5. THE PICK: South Carolina 20-17
Louisiana-Monroe (4-5) at LSU (8-1), 7 p.m., ESPN GamePlan
THE BUZZ: This is just the second meeting all-time between the schools, which are about 150 miles apart. LSU is 33-0 all-time against current members of the Sun Belt Conference. This is ULM's third SEC West opponent of the season; it already has lost to Arkansas and Auburn.
THE LINE: LSU by 32.5. THE PICK: LSU 35-7
Big 12 Conf All
North Division
Nebraska (9) 4-1, 8-1
Missouri (20) 3-2, 7-2
Kansas State 3-3, 6-3
Iowa State 3-3, 5-5
Kansas 1-4, 3-6
Colorado 0-5, 3-6
South Division
Oklahoma State (12) 4-1, 8-1
Baylor 4-2, 7-3
Texas A&M (23) 3-2, 6-3
Oklahoma (19) 3-2, 7-2
Texas Tech 3-4, 5-4
Texas 2-4, 4-5
Texas Tech (5-4) at Oklahoma (7-2), 3:30 p.m., ABC regional/ESPN GamePlan
THE BUZZ: The Sooners didn't play well on either side of the ball in losing at Texas A&M last week, and they need to rebound quickly to remain in the hunt for the Big 12 South title. Tech's pass defense has been sieve-like, which should mean a big day for OU QB Landry Jones and WR Ryan Broyles.
THE LINE: Oklahoma by 14.5. THE PICK: Oklahoma 40-24
Kansas (3-6) at Nebraska (8-1), 7 p.m.
THE BUZZ: Nebraska owns KU, holding a 90-23-2 series lead. The Huskers expect starting QB Taylor Martinez to be back in the lineup. Kansas has been bad against the run, which means the Huskers should be able to run wild. This is KU coach Turner Gill's first game against his alma mater.
THE LINE: Nebraska by 35. THE PICK: Nebraska 56-17
Oklahoma State (8-1) at Texas (4-5), 8 p.m., ABC regional/ESPN GamePlan
THE BUZZ: Texas has lost five of its past six, and a dispirited bunch now has to face a high-powered Oklahoma State offense. The Cowboys are in the driver's seat in the Big 12 South, but they are 2-22 against Texas all-time. Oklahoma State QB Brandon Weeden has 26 TD passes and nine picks; Texas QB Garrett Gilbert has seven TD passes and 14 picks.
THE LINE: Oklahoma State by 5.5. THE PICK: Oklahoma State 34-24
Pacific-10 Conf All
Oregon (1) 6-0, 9-0
Stanford (7) 5-1, 8-1
Arizona (18) 4-2, 7-2
Oregon State 3-2, 4-4
USC 3-3, 6-3
California 3-3, 5-4
Arizona State 2-4, 4-5
UCLA 2-4, 4-5
Washington 2-4, 3-6
Washington State 0-7, 1-9
Oregon (9-0) at California (5-4), 7:30 p.m., Versus
THE BUZZ: Cal is 4-0 at home and has played much better in Berkeley than on the road. Oregon has outscored opponents 215-48 in the second half and has allowed just seven fourth-quarter points.
THE LINE: Oregon by 20. THE PICK: Oregon 58-28
Stanford (8-1) at Arizona State (4-5), 7:30 p.m., Fox Sports Arizona/Fox College Sports
THE BUZZ: Stanford has scored at least 30 points in each game this season, the longest such streak in school history. Stanford has outscored foes 226-71 in the first half and hasn't trailed at halftime this season. Arizona State has to win to become bowl-eligible; the Sun Devils have two FCS victories, meaning they need to get to seven to be eligible for a bowl bid.
THE LINE: Stanford by 5.5. THE PICK: Stanford 40-28
USC (6-3) at Arizona (7-2), 8 p.m., ABC regional/ESPN GamePlan
THE BUZZ: The Trojans lead the series 26-7, and Arizona's victory last season snapped USC's seven-game winning streak in the series. USC beat Arizona State last week and now goes for the sweep of the Pac-10's Arizona schools. This is the last Saturday game of the season for Arizona, which has a Friday game and a Thursday game left on the schedule.
THE LINE: Arizona by 4. THE PICK: Arizona 37-31
.
.
Now that the dust has settled, the political pundits have responded, and the world has watched in wonder at our strange democratic system of government, where do we go from here? As for me, I don't believe the politicians from either party nor the national news media and their preoccupation with generating revenue.
The Republicans didn't win, and the Democrats didn't lose. Obama might have been stung by the results and the Tea party certainly did rock the Obama agenda to it's core. Yet as the couple of hundred newly elected officials take office, what does the scorecard show?
On the domestic front
We still have the unfunded Obama agenda with up to $3 trillion in unanticipated cost
The deficit is still $1.4 trillion a year
The debt ceiling will pass $14 trillion this year and $15 trillion next year
The housing and foreclosure crisis remains untouched and unresolved
Financial reform forgot to crack down on hedge funds that brought about the economic collapse
Campaign reform is forgotten as record campaign costs passed $2.5 billion in 2010
Our aging infrastructure needs about $2 trillion to fix what is broken
Health care and insurance premiums continue to spiral up in costs
The more we spend on education the dumber our kids get
We still have no energy independence or alternative energy policy
In foreign affairs
The world economy continues to struggle because of US dominance
In Iraq 50,000 troops can't stop the bloodshed
The new Iraq government was influenced more by Iran than the USA
Sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program
Afghanistan remains loyal to Iran in spite of over 100,000 troops and billions a week cost
Obama embraced India while shunning Pakistan our other ally
The Federal Reserve infuriated the world with the $1 trillion "quantitative easing" policy
Germany, UK and France all condemned the Obama backed Fed policy
With the Fed driving down the value of the dollar, America gains at everyone else's expense
Israel and the Palestinians are light years from peace
Israel continues to build settlements
Over 2 million American troops remain overseas but only 150,000 are fighting
China and America remain at odds over currency valuations
America can't even get a trade agreement with our strongest ally in Asia, South Korea
Mexico lost 30,000 lives to America's drug war
South America feels more ignored than ever by the USA
As you see, we have a huge and largely unfulfilled agenda and where action was taken the result was not what we sought. However, you will never be informed of the true problems we face if you do not understand the issues and if you rely on the media and their news in a nutshell attitude. The problems we face require a lot more than 30 second sound bites to solve.
In the days ahead I will review the pros and cons of these issues. Where I can I will offer solutions to the problems or attempt to identify the path to success. If we do not embrace this agenda we will never be the shining light to the world we should be and that the world so desperately needs to survive.
.
.
Did you ever wonder how a nation as powerful as America could be dependent on only two political parties to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with them? Well it was not always that way. In fact there were no political parties back when we tossed out the English. Perhaps this history of the two party system will help you understand why it evolved and how it might have failed to meet the needs of today.
Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and before the successful resolution of the War for Independence (1783), the American colonies decided it would be best to "confederate," at least for the purposes of entering into strategic alliances with European powers and perhaps waging war again with the mother country. This gave the U.S. the Articles of Confederation (1781), the first constitution of the "United States.” But the Articles were soon deemed inadequate and another Constitutional Convention was called (1787) which resulted in the U.S. Constitution (1789). But not without a fight.
The “Federalists” were of course instrumental in the movement for the new U.S. Constitution and for a stronger Federal role. The so-called Anti-Federalists were concerned that this new Federal government might over-power the states' sovereignties and abridge individual citizens' rights (most states had a long and proud history of individual rights). The passage of the Bill of Rights, as a permanent limit to the powers of the Federal government, answered much of that argument. Nonetheless, the struggle between a strong Federal government and state sovereignties has been an important thread in the play of our two-party system from the very beginning.
From that beginning in 1789, the U.S. didn't have a two-party system; it had George Washington, a President without a party. During his two terms, a rivalry grew between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both Federalists. Jefferson challenged Adams under the banner of the Democratic-Republican party. Interesting that this first real party, alone, should contain the nominal seeds of the present two-party system. The word Democratic implies will of the people, the word Republican implies rule of law (protection from a potential tyranny of the majority). The (mostly aristocratic and Virginian) Democratic-Republicans kept the Presidency from 1800 through 1828.
In 1828, the popular war-hero Andrew Jackson became the first President from a new party, the Democrats, the true party “of the people." With the exception of one term when the Whigs (a party whose name more clearly identified itself as the party of privilege than the Democratic-Republicans whom they replaced) won the Presidency, the Democrats held the White House until 1860.
The Northern Abolitionist Movement gave birth to a new party (1856), the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was their first successful candidate for President (1860). The Northern, anti-slavery and pro-business Republicans held the White House thru 1912, with the exception of the Democrat Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms. 1864 really marks the beginning of the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans. From the beginning, the Republicans have been Northern and pro-business, the Democrats Southern and more populist. Woodrow Wilson was the only other Democratic President besides Cleveland before the Great Depression. So, for all intents and purposes, the Republicans held Presidential power for 72 years but for 16 Democratic years.
The Great Depression (1929 and forward) changed all that. As business had so completely failed the people, the party of the people, the Democrats, under Franklin Roosevelt, won the support of the majority of the voters. Indeed, they kept power through 1968 except for the two terms of Dwight Eisenhower, who won his elections not for his politics but for his stature as a war-hero. Pretty much the Democrats (FDR, JFK, LBJ) successfully defined themselves as the party of the people, of the poor and middle class, and of the large and growing labor movement.
The Republicans were pretty much forced to redefine themselves, not as the party of privilege but as the party of individual and states’ rights, and of tax cuts and reduced government spending. But this didn't win them elections (nor did it represent their real values). Most Americans since FDR have identified themselves as Democrats, a natural thing as most Americans are not wealthy. Ever since 1932, the Republicans have only won the Presidency when their candidate was more personable and more “Presidential,” not because of his positions on the issues. Poll after poll for the last 70 years show Americans identify with Democratic positions even when they elect a Republican. TV has been a potent force in this phenomenon, as has the increasing role of religion and ignorance in the American political scene.
The nature of the parties' differences has altered dramatically, if not fundamentally, since 1864. The initial differences were over slavery and industrialism and the dominance of the South (poorer and less populous) by the North. The differences in the 1890's, following a Depression, were over a Gold standard and whether debts were to be repaid by cheaper or more dear money. In the 1910's, party differences centered around isolationism and fighting World War I. In the 1930's, again following the start of a Depression, the Democrats became the party of the people and of the Labor Movement while the Republicans were seen as the party of the Wealthy.
Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, then, the parties have divided the electorate, for better or for worse, along economic class lines. How then, you ask, have the Republicans been able to win any national elections at all, as they are the party of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not the party of Robin Hood? The reason is not hard to see. The rise of the Independents, now larger than the registration of either major party, began during the Viet Nam era and has accelerated ever since.
Both parties have lost their identity and lost their commitment to principles long held sacred. As the voter had a more difficult time distinguishing between the two, neither party could dominate as split power between the parties provided a viable check and balance for the people.
While the more aggressive conservatives in the Republican party, Liberals in the Democratic party, and Libertarians in the loose confederation of the Tea party get all the media attention, in truth all three are fighting it out for control of the middle ground in political philosophy.
Today America can be found where the conservative and liberal philosophies blend in the middle, where fiscal responsibility and limited federal government embrace certain social obligations while rejecting other social issues. America is not about class separation and philosophical polarization, it is about individual freedom and equal opportunity. Neither party holds the key to such a goal.
No Republican wants to starve the poor or cut benefits for the elderly any more than a Democrat wants to wipe out the upper class or take over big business. The very concept of such thought is promulgated by the news media to increase TV ratings, sell advertising or sell newspapers. Oh yeah, and also to help all the news "contributors" and political pundits sell their latest book telling us what is wrong with our country but only from their perspective.
So that is an entirely over-simplification of the history and evolution of the two party system and it will hopefully give you some insight into how we got in our current mess. Getting out may take a lot more work than we hoped.
.
.
|
Victims of Church attack |
UN Condemns Attacks
The United Nations has condemned the brutal attacks against Iraqi Christians by Islamic militants.
In the past 10 days, the Christian community has been targeted by a series of bombings and an attack on a Baghdad Catholic church. More than 60 people have been killed.
The U.N. Security Council said it's appalled by the acts of violence, calling them a blow against religious diversity and democracy.
The council added that it condemned all attacks in Iraq, "particularly those motivated by religious hatred."
French ambassador Gerard Araud also told reporters that Iraq's Christians are "on the frontline of the fight for democracy."
Meanwhile, 37 survivors of October's deadly Baghdad church attack and their families arrived in France on Thursday. The French government has offered them asylum and will also welcome another 90 Iraqi Christians to their country in the next few days.
"France supports their desire to remain and live in peace on their land, where they have lived for centuries," French Immigration Minister Eric Besson said.
Bessen explained that the move is part of France's program for Iraqis belonging to "vulnerable religious minorities."
Pakistan Court Sentences Christian woman to death for blasphemy
LAHORE, Pakistan (AFP) – A Pakistani court has sentenced to death a Christian mother of five for blasphemy, the first such conviction of a woman and sparking protests from rights group Thursday.
Asia Bibi, 45, was sentenced Monday by a local court in Nankana district in Pakistan's central province Punjab, about 75 kilometres (47 miles) west of the country's cultural capital of Lahore.
Pakistan has yet to execute anyone for blasphemy, but the case spotlights the Muslim country's controversial laws on the subject which rights activists say encourages Islamist extremism in a nation wracked by Taliban attacks.
.
.
Move over college football jocks and fans, because after decades of outright bias against those who are too smart to play football fisticuffs, we at the Coltons Point Times are calling for the establishment of the NCAA BCS National Digital Football Championship to be fought out among the top two colleges or universities in America in terms of the combined poll standings in computer science, engineering and overall quality of education.
Today we are prepared to release the first BCS National Digital Football top 25 Poll of those hallowed academic institutions whose brains far outweigh their brawn. Our poll is loaded with the most scientifically revered colleges in America whose endowment funds exceed that of the top jock shops. No one else can make such a claim.
Now, I do have a confession to make. Ever since I realized as a child that a terrible mistake had been made when I was dropped off by the stork in Iowa City, Iowa and not Boston, Massachusetts where I was supposed to go, I have suffered greatly. You see, I was created with Ivy League or MIT DNA and the corn fields of the Midwest are no place to create Microsoft or Facebook like I was bred to achieve.
I mean you know you are in the wrong place when your family laughs at your genetic tendencies. Like when I ordered lobster at the local cafe, put an Italian opera on the stereo, declared the Yankees (New York) and Red Sox (Boston) instead of the Cardinals (St. Louis) or Cubs (Chicago) my favorite team.
You most certainly would have agreed that I was odd. Don't get me wrong, I was a pretty good jock in all sports and that ran contrary to my DNA but I did get good at chess and croquet. In school I did most everything from get good to bad grades, being a jock yet a member of the speech and debate teams, playing in a rock 'n roll band and the school non-marching band.
If I had been delivered safely back at birth to the Rothschild family my name would have been a lot longer, I would have the name suffix III I fully expected to have, and in time I would have possessed all the alphabetical scholastic titles like B.A., M.B.A., J.D. & Ph.D. Knowing you were switched at birth and being helpless to correct this huge celestial mistake is a terrible cross to bear.
So I hung out with the freaks, geeks and misfits so I could at least assimilate my lost breeding if not experience it up close and personal. Thankfully I was well received. And later in life it helped me in understanding and relating to the powerful East Coast establishment who were products of the Ivy League and other educational institutions of higher learning than the other schools.
It even helped me survive working for people from Harvard, Yale and Princeton and working with people from MIT, Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. In spite of being part of groups like Marvin Minsky's Society of the Mind (MIT Media Lab) and other intellectually challenging groups, without the proper breeding you are never really one of them.
I never got to make my supreme contribution to the elite and I hope this BCS National Digital Football Championship helps pay back what I felt I owed. Perhaps I can get the ascot out of storage if we are a huge success?
As for the BCS NDFC it is time we make a statement, show the world that eggheads and geeks have as much to offer to Main Street as we (oops, a Freudian slip) you do to Wall Street and Washington. We want a playoff of the top 8 BCS NDFC teams at year end, meaning New Year's Eve, for the right to be the first of many future national champions of the National Digital Football playoffs.
Teams of four players with two alternates will be eligible from each school in the top 8 standing at year end. They will collectively agree as to the version of digital football to be played throughout the competition. The winner will be crowned, a trophy presented for the school, and whatever other prizes we can get from sponsors will be given. Oh yes, we are searching for a title sponsor like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft or whoever.
Now, for the official unveiling of the first BCS NDFC poll, here are the standings.
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology--Cambridge, MA
2. Stanford University--Palo Alto, CA
3. University of California, Berkeley, CA
4. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
5. University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, IL
6. Cornell University--Ithaca, NY
7. University of Texas--Austin (Cockrell) Austin, TX
8. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
9. California Institute of Technology--Pasadena, CA
10. University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI
11. Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech)--Atlanta, GA
12. University of California--Los Angeles (Samueli) Los Angeles, CA (UCLA)
13. University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
14. University of Maryland-College Park, MD
15. University of California--San Diego (Jacobs) La Jolla, CA
16. Harvard University Cambridge, MA
17. Columbia University (Fu Foundation) New York, NY
18. Purdue University--West Lafayette West Lafayette, IN
19. University of Washington--Seattle, WA
20. University of Southern California (Viterbi)--Los Angeles, CA
21. Brown University--Providence, RI
22. University of Massachusetts--Amherst, MA
23. Rice University--Houston, TX
24. University of Pennsylvania--Philadelphia, PA
25. University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill, NC
That's it folks. We have a Beaver, Tree, Bear, Scottish Terrier, Abe Lincoln, Big Red Bear, Longhorn, Tiger, another Beaver and Badger for mascots for the top ten. It gets better down the list.
If you know any students at these schools you should let them know they are in the top 25 poll of computer scientists, geeks and engineering freaks and we will be tracking the hits from each college town because in two weeks the number of hits from each college will be factored into the poll. Until the end of the season, year end, it will be the only way a college can move up through the ranks.
|
Marvin again? |
The top 8, if sponsorship can be found, will play for the 2010 BSC National Digital Football Championship and full bragging rights to being the Other BCS National Football Champion. I want to see if anyone can knock off MIT and their Media Lab where Marvin Minsky should be coach.
.
.
As the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton peace initiative seems to fade into the land of lost dreams in the Middle East, where it can join the graveyard of dead peace initiatives of former presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, a sense of futility is spreading through the peace participants.
I said "Right seems to be Right" and what I meant is the political reality of right leaning politics, both in America and Israel, are driving the failure. Perhaps it is the same wave of conservatism that has swept Communism from most nations and left the liberal socialists in Europe gasping for breath. Whatever it is, there can be no doubt of the impact.
Here in America Obama got clobbered in the Midterm elections because his agenda was too far left, too liberal, and too big government driven for the people he governs. The same was true in nation after nation across Europe the past few years as the socialist agenda was drowning the world in red ink.
Perhaps the most astute observers and practitioners of all special interests in America is the powerful Israeli lobby, the groups solely dedicated to the preservation of Israel. There are three main elements of the Israeli lobby groups, the Christians United for Israel, is the "largest" pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which directly lobbies the United States Congress, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which "is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch" of the US government according to informed insiders.
Since the founding of Israel in 1948 no other lobbyists have dominated our nation's capitol like the Israelis. So complete is their power and control that Israel has unlimited access to arms and weapons systems, has over 200 nuclear warheads though it refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has many ways to acquire American funds and dominates the American media.
Anyone who believes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the saber rattling with Iran has no relationship to Israel is living in fantasy land and if I were Jewish I would not want it any other way. So complete is the Israeli dominance in Washington that both political parties fall all over themselves to prove they are the best hope for the Israeli future.
Most years the Democrats have always counted on the Jewish support in the elections, even while they were trying to solve the Middle East problems in a way to benefit both Arabs and Israelis. At the same time the Republicans have generally not got the Jewish support yet they are harder lined in defending the right of Israel to exist. It was a curious outcome but it changed this year.
With the election of Obama and his family ties to Muslims for once it seemed as if the president would diminish the support for Israel and work for a better deal for the Muslims. Notwithstanding the fact Obama had Rohm Emanuel as chief of staff, the only member of the Obama inner circle to have been in the Israeli army, relations with the Obama administration have been rocky for Israel.
The more Obama tried to engage the Muslims the more suspicious the Jewish lobby. When Obama launched his version of a Middle East peace agreement there was little chance of success. It often seemed as if it was a campaign stunt to make it look like his foreign relations were improving during the bitter Midterm elections.
Israel did little to help him and seemed to be stalling for the purpose of hoping for a Republican landslide to reinforce the support for Israel in congress. Once the landslide was obvious to the Israelis if not to our own news media the Israelis shut down the peace talks over the building of Jewish settlements on Arab lands. It was an issue Obama, Clinton and Emanuel had warned Israel against using many times, calling it a threat to peace.
In response Israel has announced plans for massive new settlement construction, a slap in the face of our young president and his efforts to let the vice president handle relations with Israel. There is no way the state of Israel is going to let a subordinate of the president be their conduit to the president.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, rejected the criticism from Obama, Biden and others and has recently said during his most recent trip to the US, “Israel sees no connection between the peace process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem.,”
The Israeli building plans, which have already been sharply criticized by Palestinian leaders, are at least one year from being implemented. But taken together they could pave the way for the construction of more than 2,000 housing units for Jewish settlers.
The two biggest projects focus on Har Homa, a settlement south of Jerusalem that has been the source of previous diplomatic friction between the US and Israel, and Ariel, a large settlement deep inside the Palestinian West Bank.
The new settlement projects were revealed only days before Mr. Netanyahu is due to meet Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Washington.
The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has strongly condemned the Israeli government's decision to construct 1.300 new settler homes in East Jerusalem, in addition to other 800 settlement units in "Ariel settlement", built on the West Bank lands.
The OIC Chief emphasized that Israeli settlement, not only affects the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but also represents a flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
He said that the intransigence of Israel in its violation of the international law, through imposing a new reality on the ground, settlement building, Isolating and Judaizing al-Quds city, is a blatant challenge to the international legitimacy.
The Secretary-General called the Quartet and the international community to compel Israel to stop all settlement acts that violate the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.
A day after Israel announced its settlement plans, U.S. President Barack Obama, vehemently criticized the proposed construction of 1,300 Jewish settler homes in the disputed East Jerusalem region.
The U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia have all criticized Israel’s decision to approve building of new homes.
IsraCast News from Israel provides a view of the situation not available from the American media in these excerpts from a story by David Essing.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are both grappling with a fundamental issue - the leader's role in a democratic society. Obama and his Democratic party have just been clobbered in the U.S. mid-term elections, while Netanyahu is still walking a tight-rope between American pressure for concessions to the Palestinians and securing his power base among Israeli Right-wingers. On entering the White House, Obama threw caution to the wind; he had seen the light and, like the biblical Moses, was the chosen leader destined to lead his people to the Promised Land of greater social equality. Nor was he deterred from his messianic mission by the pressing need to repair the collapsing economic system that had gone haywire under the Republicans' unbridled capitalism.
Obama would have done better if he had taken a page out of one of his illustrious Democratic predecessors, Franklin D. Roosevelt at the outset of World War II. British historian Ian Kershaw in his book 'Fateful Choices' described how Roosevelt was convinced the U.S. would have to confront Nazi Germany but also realized that he could not overturn the 80% of U.S. public opinion that supported isolationism and opposed getting embroiled again in another European bloodbath. So Roosevelt bowed to public opinion and chose to support British Prime Minister Winston Churchill with lend-lease etc., but even his role as a non-interventionist aroused the ire of the isolationists. Roosevelt had to bide his time until conditions changed which they did after Japan's devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt realized something that Obama did not - if a democratic leader gets too far out in front of the pack, no matter how convinced he is in the justice of his cause, he may lose the pack. In Obama's case, he failed to understand there was a limit on the desire for change that had swept him into the White House. Obama now says the problem was that he was so busy with getting things done that he did not spend enough effort explaining his policies to the public.
In the Israeli context, Obama's 'go for broke' approach recalls Prime Minister Ehud Barak's 'all or nothing gambit' at Camp David 2000 with Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton. Barak, with Clinton's blessing, staked all his chips on a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian leader. In that case, Arafat was not ready for peace; he simply walked away from the table and flew home to launch the Second Intifada. Subsequently, Barak had to face an angry Israeli public that included part of his Left-wing power base. He was blamed him for going too far, too fast, 'giving away the kitchen-sink' while all he had to show for it was a bloody wave of Palestinian terrorism. Both Barak and Obama were blinded by their own visions and ignored the underlying reality. Obama will get a second time at the plate before the Presidential election in another two years - the way things are going it is doubtful if the Labor Party leader will get a second chance in the Prime Minister's office.
What can be said about Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu? Where has the Likud leader positioned himself in the choice between setting bold national goals in the face of changing circumstances or sticking to the platform that got him elected to office. Netanyahu appears to be wrestling with this fateful choice. Three Left-wing heavyweights Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and now Yitzak Herzog, the young Laborite who is challenging Barak for party leadership, have all declared they believe Netanyahu when he says he is ready for the 'painful concessions' necessary to make peace with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. However, key Likud cabinet ministers such as Moshe Ya'alon, Benny Begin and Silvan Shalom contend that Netanyahu will honor his pledge to start rebuilding seriously in Judea & Samaria and doubt the PM's commitment to the two-state solution.
The settlers are a little worried - they are running paid ads in newspapers quoting the Prime Minister's promises to build again, as if Netanyahu needs reminding. Right-wingers are declaring: 'We elected Netanyahu and he must do our bidding!' There is a third course of action for an elected leader, the one coined by former PM Arik Sharon - 'What a prime minister sees after taking office is not the same as what he sees before being elected'. Sharon raised this justification after being hauled over the coals by the Right-wing for bowing to President George Bush's Roadmap for a two-state solution. However Sharon as did Yitzak Rabin stipulated that the reality of Israel's security will always be paramount in Palestinian peace-making. The majority of Israelis believed them as evidenced by their election victories. For his part, Netanyahu defied the Right-wing and his own Likud party by enforcing the ten month moratorium on settlement building that expired on Sept.26th. He opted for the move in order to placate the Obama administration after the Israeli government's building gaffe in eastern Jerusalem during the visit by Vice- President Joe Biden. The only reason Netanyahu was able to push through such an abhorrent step was his promise to send the bulldozers back in after the freeze expired. The PM had to reject American and Palestinian demands that he extend the moratorium if he was to save face with his domestic power base. The Arab League has given one month to find a solution and meanwhile Israel has refrained from wide scale building on the West Bank. So what happens now? If Peres, Barak and Herzog are right Netanyahu may possibly come up with a 'constructive ambiguity' when he sees Vice-President Joe Biden again, this time in the U.S. If so, Netanyahu will be declaring as did the late Yitzak Rabin: 'I'm leader and I'll do the navigating!' Otherwise, Netanyahu will be opting for: 'I'm their leader, so I have to do what my supporters want'.
The fact that Obama has stuck to his position, articulated in his Cairo address, that the 'settlements must stop' appears to leaves little room for Netanyahu to maneuver. But the question now being asked in Jerusalem is whether the battered Obama, about to be embroiled in a battle royal with a Republican majority in the House over economic policy will have the inclination to risk more of his political capital in the Middle East. Channel one TV has reported that Obama might replace envoy George Mitchell with old hands Martin Indyk or Dennis Ross. However, many Israeli pundits have said Obama will be preoccupied with economic issues at home, Two years ago during the presidential race they said the same thing and were proven wrong.
On the other hand, the grim IDF intelligence briefing by Gen. Amos Yadlin accentuated the reality of security threats to the Jewish state posed by a potential war on several fronts by multiple enemies. This reality was obviously made clear to the Prime Minister some time ago and undoubtedly stresses, as recently stated by President Peres, Israel's need to assist the U.S. in building the coalition against Iran by advancing on the Palestinian peace track.
.