Controlled demolition? They beg to differ..

All dressed up and nowhere to go. I was going to post a long rant debunking controlled demolition as a reason why the World Trade Center collapsed – but somebody has nicely put it all in a single document.

I will post a few choice bits I found that tackle the notion advanced by conspiracy theorists, namely:

“…2,000 lbs of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) could cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”
-Prof. Stephen E. Jones, Brigham Young University

Professor, meet a man who blows up buildings for a living:

“The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist… If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”
-Mark Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Loizeaux goes on to say that the biggest commercially available charges can cut through steel that is three inches thick. The box columns at the base of the WTC towers were fourteen inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it… If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below… but it wouldn’t knock the building down.”
-Mark Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition, Inc.

On to the really good stuff. It turns out yesterday, the folks over at Implosionworld.com (gotta love the name) have released a report on controlled demolition theories at the WTC.

Their verdict – the Controlled Demolition theory folks don’t have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Read all about it. (PDF)

Where does the money go?

Damn fine idea if you ask me.

What do Friends of the Earth, the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have in common? If you think not much, then you are partially wrong: They all love the new Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Introduced by senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public website listing the names and locations of all individuals and groups receiving federal funds, including the amount of federal funds received annually by program.

The idea of a transparency website -- replete with search engines that include subcontractors -- was born in May 2005 at a hearing on U.S. efforts to combat malaria. Officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) squirmed as Coburn revealed that 93% of the agency's 2004 funding to eradicate malaria had been spent on administrative and advice-giving services. In addition, not enough of these funds were spent overseas; too much was absorbed by high-paid U.S. consultants.

Read more

We can't make this stuff up

The New Bush Quiz is out.

The score to beat is fifteen.

That sinking feeling...

In plugging around for the previous post, I came across the following article on Vanity Fair:

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Transcripts and audio from NORAD. Shows the chaos and confusion of that morning.

9:32:20
MAJOR JAMES ANDERSON: Have you asked—have you asked the question what you're gonna do if we actually find this guy? Are we gonna shoot him down if they got passengers on board? Have they talked about that?

Worth a read, and a listen.

Memo to 9/11 conspiracy buffs everywhere: Making movies is easy. Research is hard.

I've watched the internet film "Loose change," about 9/11 - and come away with the same sense of bewilderment that I first had when I read the JFK conspiracy book "Best Evidence."

Can't be... it just can't be...

Were I still the 17-year old twerp who read JFK assassination books, I'd still be wondering about 9/11. Thankfully, I have a cerebral cortex, and the curiosity to use it.

Loose change's slick production values give it the appearance of credibility. Quick cuts, edgy music. Interviews that ratchet up the sense of alarm.
Part of the wow factor of this movie is that it was made by total nobodies on a shoestring.

Nobodies on a shoestring don't usually have quality fact-checking.

The problem with going after these guys is you typically come off like you're as kooky as they are.

For what it's worth:

• When conspiracy theories go bad. by David Corn


• Popular Mechanics on 9/11: Debunking The Myths


• Fahrenheit 2777 by Michael Shermer


• State Department's refutation


• Line by line refutation of Loose Change movie (Not very professional, but not terrible either)

Be first, be loud - and you win

The modern news cycle has led to a truth in message management: namely, it doesn't matter if what you say is correct - you have to say it loudly, with conviction, and -most importantly- first. The current administration appears to have not only grasped this tactic, but mastered it.

Spin any malarkey you want, the news will have to play catch up - and by the time they do, you've already won the war of ideas.

This is likely news to no one. But I just had to point out a posting on the New York Times that debunks an earlier use of this tactic. Mostly because it is so richly deserved.

The target of this debunking? Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear.

Now, I like a number of Crichton's novels; the Andromeda Strain, Eaters of the Dead, Jurassic Park, and Timeline. All good fun, all are loosely based on Crichton's tried and true formula, find a story hook rooted in science and go to town.

In State of Fear, Crichton basically counterpunches all environmental science, using whatever he can find that sounds credible. His loudest refrain was a study on Antarctica that had observed a cooling effect on one of the continent's peninsulas, as well as the thickening of the glacier. Out of context, this appears to fly in the face of global warming. "Earth getting warmer? How come Antarctica is getting cooler?"

Except the study didn't say that Antarctica is getting cooler, they pointed to data that a majority of the continent had cooled - and noted that the rest of the continent was, in fact warming. Their conclusion was that more research needed to be done, and not "Global warming is a hoax!" as Crichton would have you believe.

Enter the NYT editorial "Cold, Hard Facts," penned by one of the authors of the study, Peter Doran:

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

...I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Counterpunching is fun (I say this from experience) and it can make a good novel - but Crichton's misuse of the one study that supported his plot, and his complete dismissal of the literally thousands of independent observations that support the theory of Global Warming, was irresponsible. The fact that this novel becomes some people's sole interaction with the issue just compounds the fact. Crichton has leveraged his fame into audiences with the President to discuss the issue, which (while unlikely to have swayed the president) lends his work credibility that this scientific dilettante just doesn't deserve.

The guy's a fiction writer. Novelists are, to use Ursula's Le Guin's phrase, "in the business of telling lies." It is presented as fact to make a good story, not because it is fact. Crichton doesn't have to answer to anyone - he just has to move product.

I'm glad that the truth comes out eventually, but once again - it's in the fine print - long after the fact.

Updated
There are more and better criticisms out there. Here are just a few:

• Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
  By Gavin Schmidt December 13, 2004
• Distort Reform
  By Gavin Schmidt February 1, 2005
• Checking Crichton's footnotes
  By Chris Mooney February 6, 2005

Whole lotta Muffuletta

A local deli has arguably the best Muffuletta I've had in the Midwest. Being a Muffuletta, it's about the size of a small car. On impulse (read "avoiding my desk") I went out and picked one up.

I love this place. The first time I was there, the guy made the Muffuletta and was so happy with it that - I kid you not - he photographed it before he gave it to me. Must have put it in his advertising materials. Gotta like a guy who takes that kind of pride in his work.

So I order mine and he drops it down on the counter with an impressive 'whump!' I look up at him, "Now that's a sandwich!" He just grinned. A pound and a half of ham, genoa salami, and provalone, topped with the holy sacrement known as olive relish. Oh yeah....

Well, I ate it. Damn near all of it. And while it was eye-rollingly good. I'm starting to realize (for the bazillionth time) that sometimes, too much of a good thing is truly too much. Now here I am at work trying to stay on task, when all I want to do is find a large sofa and pass out.

Foolish, foolish mortal... Do not anger the gods of the Muffuletta, for they will hurt you...

The best disinfectant

Just saw this, and thought it was too cool not to mention. This specific interface may or may not catch on, but the general idea is sure to last: Greater access to politician's fundraising information and voting records via a common web app.

• Read the article from TPMcafe, or
• See the example

Reverberate

Last week, my sister-in-law gave me a copy of Neko Case's Blacklisted, and I just can't shake the song, "Deep Red Bells." She wrote it about the Green River Killer, which gives it the macabre flavor that ensures maximum sticking power - at least, for people like me.

The windout has been camped out in my head for three solid days:

Where does this mean world cast its cold eye?
Who’s left to suffer long about you?
Does your soul cast about like an old paper bag,
past empty lots and early graves,
of those like you who lost their way
-murdered on the interstate-
While the red bells rang like thunder?

You'll just have to imagine Neko's voice soaring through the last line like an avenging angel.

Gives me chills.

Spot on

NTY on the reality of the current administration's power grabs:

The Real Agenda
Published: July 16, 2006
The New York Times

It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

More

Thief in the night

I talk about soccer a lot, because it's easy. The words fall out of my head and more or less say what I want to say.

Real life isn't so easy.

This morning, E's father passed away after a long struggle with cancer. He passed away in his sleep - which I suppose is a small comfort. E's sister had just made it up from L.A. - and I'm hoping she got to spend time with him before the end.

I doubt he got to see his new grand-daughter, but I'm hoping he did.

There is real comfort for E, but she's with her sisters. Times like this, companionship is all you can lean on.

The words aren't coming out right, so I'll just stop here.

High treason

July 9, 2006
Italy: 1
France: 1
Zidane 7' PEN; Materazzi 19'; Italy wins 5-3 on penalties.

Going into this match, I'd been pulling for France. Mostly pulling for Zidane and the old guard to stump the critics and walk home with a second world cup. Zizou's last game - the frogs could win one for the old man, and everything would be golden.

I wanted the fairy tale.

Being a soccer fan, I know that fairy tales have no place in soccer - and I'd prepared for an Italy win. No matter what, Zidane had shown his quality - and the world would have to give him his due.

Win or lose, he still walks off the field a hero, right?

Enter soccer -the cruelest sport of all.

France's early lead forces the Italians to play, which they do very well for about a half an hour - deservedly scoring and dominating play in the first half. Then France pulls out the stops and starts running the show. Italy turtles in, and just gets shelled.

Henry's a madman, the French midfield is dominating, but nothing's going in. Zidane's playing hurt, the fairy tale is all queued up.

Extra time, France is driving - subbing in two forwards doing everything right. Italy's looking ragged, they could lose at any moment -

-and Zidane headbutts Materazzi. Materazzi (having played in the Serie A) drops to the ground like he's been shot.

I'm looking at the screen, trying to figure out why in God's name Zizou would do something so blatantly unforgivable, when I realize that the ref hasn't seen it. Impossible, it's on the replay, as blatant as the Hand of God - maybe he'll -

No, the fourth official's looking at the same replay as the rest of the world - and the ref reaches into his pocket.

Win or lose, Zidane, you just lost your legacy. One of four men on earth to score a goal in two World Cup finals, and you will forever be remembered for this stupid act.

A ten-man France plays valiantly, managing to dominate the Italians. Two quality chance don't go France's way - but it doesn't really matter anymore. Even a win won't redeem Zizou. He blew it, and when it goes to penalties, two of the three worst outcomes have already happened.

The PK coin toss comes up Italy, and provides the third.

Losing is nothing, and PKs are an evil of the game that need to be rooted out and destroyed (replay, anyone?) but Zidane's flame out is just the worst.

It undoes all the nobility of France's run to the final - and guarantees that whenever Zidane's name is mentioned, the next sentence will be about him headbutting his way into a red card. It's been said that a man is more than the worst thing he's ever done, and while that's surely true - truth has no foothold in the mass media.

Zidane didn't lose a game, he lost everything.

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

Salvation

There comes a point in every World Cup when all the teams collectively realize that they are a few games away from winning the whole thing. This is usually right before the games start to suck.

Defense being easier than offense, teams start playing conservative and hope the other side screws up bad enough to let them win. This is compounded by suspensions and injuries acquired in group play. Now everybody’s on Plan B. This is when the tournament’s goal average starts to plummet, and the penalty kicks crawl out of the woodwork to screw up everything.

Exhibit A

June 30, 2006
Germany: 1
Argentina: 1
Ayala 49'; Klose 80'; Germany wins 4-2 on penalties.

On the one hand, this game had drama, Argentina scoring early in the second half and Germany playing catch up in front of the home crowd. But it was not the German team that demolished its earlier opposition; they played tight, and almost lost because of it. Klinsman inexplicably pulled Klose after scoring the equalizer (you hung with his ineffective play for 80 minutes, and now that he shows signs of life – he’s gone?), and didn’t use his last sub for overtime.

The Argies were the same drama queens they always are – flopping like fish every time a German walked near them. And once again, they squandered the brilliant talent at their disposal, keeping quality subs on the bench and running headlong into the German defense. Klose equalized and Germany surged for the early part of overtime, but then it just became two teams hoping to get lucky. Germany won the coin toss, so their fans can stay happy. Dull, dull dull.

Exhibit B

Italy: 3
Ukraine: 0
Zambrotta 6'; Toni 59', 69'

With a three nothing scoreline, you’d think this one was a barn-burner – but it too, was an exercise in tedium. Ukraine putting everything into their lone striker (and everything for Ukraine wasn’t much) and Italy clumsily hacking their way around the field until their instinctive skill saved them. Not much ebb and flow – just kicking the ball around until Gol, Gol, Gol. I’m happy for Luca Toni, he was more than due – but outside of that, I’m sorry I taped this one – I could have caught up on some much needed sleep.

Exhibit C

July 1, 2006
Portugal: 0
England: 0
Portugal wins 3-1 on penalties.

I got up at 4:30 AM so I could road trip in time to see this one live after I arrived. I shouldn’t have bothered.

What the hell is with England? Eleven men on the field – they can’t find their own ass with both hands. Rooney gets ejected and suddenly they remember how to play. Ten-man England was looking like they’d pull this one out, when Eleven-man England was lying back just asking to be beaten.

Portugal was disorganized and sloppy, but England lost Beckham to injury than Rooney (because he’s a total idiot – I can see the headlines now: “Another Stupid Boy!”). For the life of me, I can’t figure why Sven-Goran Eriksson pulls Lennon out after he’s creating holy havoc every chance he gets. All the drama this one had was due to Rooney’s expulsion, so I suppose I should be grateful. OT was grueling only because you knew that Portugal was only to happy to go to PKs and the English have this thing about losing every shootout that matters.
Seen it before. Thanks for playing England. And C. Ronaldo? You’ve still yet to do anything impressive this tournament. Bleah.

And then...

And then there was Brasil vs. France.

Not much hope here – I’ve seen the Ronaldinho videos and assumed the only drama was how badly Brasil would crush a French team that couldn’t even beat S. Korea. Brasil would march on to its sixth World Cup trophy, and the skies would turn black as sackcloth.

And here is where my faith in soccer is restored.

France: 1
Brasil: 0
Henry 57’

Best match of the tournament, folks. I’d buy this one on DVD, and I’ve only bought one movie in my life.

Where to begin? Swarming defense. End to end attacking. No letup for 90 minutes.
The French didn’t beat Brasil, they OWNED Brasil.

Wait a minute…no one owns Brasil. No, today, they were owned. Shut down. Made to look desperate.

Ronaldinho? Ronaldin-who? The French midfield made him a non-factor. If you’ve watched the above clip, you know what a big deal that is. Zidane was a God, running the attack and keeping possession while under attack from all sides. Henry scored in the 57th minute (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.) and it took that long only because God wanted Brasil to hope for awhile.

Y’know, just before he crushed them.

This match could have still turned to suck-age after the goal, most teams would count themselves fortunate and sit on the lead. France attacked in waves and (somehow) defended in waves. I’ve never seen so many Brazilian passes intercepted in my life.

Brasil would lose possession, and France was off to the races in a counter attack. Cafu got subbed because he was so tired, he was getting beat with regularity. Cafu!

Game over and I’m staring at the tube with relief and despair. What a game, Allez les Bleus! But I wanted them to keep playing…

French fans are going nuts, the team is exulting...

Zidane's coming off the field in his last World Cup, knowing he just kicked Brasil's ass, and he winks at the camera. Yeah, you just made history, and you know it. Vive la France, man.

God, but I love this game.

Oh, just shut way the hell up...

So, I'm at the car dealership getting some work done on the car. No biggie. And I notice that they have a television in the lobby and - hey! - the Switzerland-Ukraine match should still be in the second half right now.

I look around, no one's even glancing at the TV. So I'm looking at the staffer, soon as they look up - I'm going to ask them if they could switch it to ESPN.

And there's this lady there. Middle-age type. Groomed. She's giving me the eye like she's afraid I'm going to ask to change the channel or something. She just sat down, but is clearly agitated in some way.

The staffer looks up, and I ask if she can switch the TV over to ESPN. I smile "it's the World Cup."

Middle age lady pipes up. "Ugh. Soccer! Bo-o-o-ring!"

I smile and say what I always say to people like this, "It's the only game the world plays."

Staffer is fiddling with the controls and making nothing but static.

Middle age pauses, like she's overstepped "I'm just kidding you." Then she finds her stride, "but if we're taking a vote, I'd like to watch 'Guiding Light.'"

Staffer can't figure out why the TV is displaying static or CNN. I realize that she's adjusting the TV and not the cable box, but at this point - it's really not worth it. Switzerland is typically pulseless, and Ukraine hasn't exactly been a wow-fest. And, truth be told, I really don't care who wins. This was just a way to pass the time.

I sit down and resign myself to the lobby magazines. Middle age now wants to be my friend. "I read an article about soccer just the other day."

I start to mutter some affirmation, but she continues.
"It was about Beckham. I guess he won the game. I saw his movie."

Inside, my self-control is holding my reflexive response at gunpoint.
"Bend it like Beckham?" is the only phrase it will allow to escape.

She's glad that we're friends now, "Yes, that was a great movie."

I dive into my magazine, and don't come up until the mechanic arrives to tell her she can leave.
---------
Ok, I'll spare you the the "Becks is a one-trick show-pony" rant and the "He's not even in the damn movie, you witless twonk," rant.

I'll even sidestep the classic "There are only two stories about soccer for you, right? 'Beckham/Posh did something' and 'US loses'"
We'll also skip the ever-popular "Boring? This country has a Golf Channel. We televise the pro-bowling tour. There are dozens upon dozens of fishing shows!!!!"

-But I do have to have one rant: the "Why don't you just shut the hell up, lady?" rant. I mean really, if she'd have beaten me to the punch and asked for Guiding Light - I would't have said, "Soap operas? Stu-pid!" I'd have looked for a magazine and kept my mouth shut.

I mean, what the hell? Who does that? Snarks a complete stranger's TV choice out loud in a roomful of people?

Some other day, she's telling her book club how the younger generation has no manners. Well, from my generation: Just shut way the hell up, lady.

Crash

Scoreline - June 22, 2006
Ghana: 2
Dramani 21'; Appiah 46' PK
United States: 1
Dempsey 42'

And so it ends. Another four-year campaign resulting in a single point, and another first round exit. The team crawled into a hole vs. the Czechs and never managed to claw their way out.

Italy tried to help us (Having trouble? We'll send one of our guys off. Need a goal? We'll put one in for you. Beat the Czechs? Ok.) but two players sent off and a a bogus PK vs. Ghana just wore us down.

The second round was laid out on a platter, and we just couldn't be bothered to attack with any numbers. Our midfielders service was terrible, our strikers were pulseless wonders (excepting Dempsey and Johnson), and any time we managed to get some momentum - something wouldn't go our way, and we'd lose all composure.

I'd love to blame the refs - but this was all on us. If you'd have told me before the tournament that we'd have tied Italy (playing a man down for a half) and then lose to Ghana, I'd have said you were nuts.

Well, it happened. I saw every minute of it. But that's soccer.

Abomination

Scoreline, Jun 17, 2006 -
Italy:1
United States: 1
Gilardino 22'; Zaccardo 27' o.g.

"We bled for our country," read the quotes. Yes, Brian McBride had his head split open, and yes we defended like lions. All true.

But lost in all the screaming about if Pope and Pablo deserved to be kicked out is the simple fact that we still haven't managed a goal in two games, and Claudio is playing like total crap.

Clint Dempsey is combining and charging forward like a maniac in the first half. Every time he gives it to Claudio, all momentum ceases while Reyna takes a moment for himself, and then passes the ball to no one. Claudio's service is crap, balls sent into the teeth of the defense, or miles away from their supposed targets.

Compare Reyna's performace with Piro's and you'll see why the US couldn't bash in a goal when we were a man up for over twenty minutes.

We can defend. But defense alone is just sitting around daring your opponent to beat you.

Oh, and the Ref was way outta line on Pope. No way that's a yellow, right off the bat. Pope was getting beat all day, if the ref wanted to be a pro - all he had to do was give Pope a warning, and wait for the inevitable screw up. Then he could throw him out with his head high.

Go Italy.

The only game the world plays

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."
-Bill Shankly, celebrated coach of Liverpool FC

When life falls apart, you go to your comfort zone. For me, at least - the World Cup has arrived at a good time. MLS is merely fast food, but the World Cup is a month-long feast at the French Laundry.
Two weeks of three games a day, where the best in the world going get medieval on each other.

This year’s tourney has been a minor goal-fest (2.5 goals per game, - thank you, Argentina), with many of them last minute game-breakers, and there have been some sparkling performances:

• Dutch striker Arjen Robben was a holy terror in both of his countries victories – hopefully he’ll break out in the round of sixteen against the likes of Mexico or Portugal.


• Paraguay’s Nelson Valdez, the only ray of light on an otherwise outclassed (and homeward-bound) squad. He was all attack, all the time. Something a lot of clubs would love to have.
  
• Sweden’s just-in-time winger, Freddie Ljungberg, saving the day in the closing minutes vs. Paraguay. (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.)
  
• Ecuador! What the hell got into these guys? Demolishing Poland and Costa Rica Like it ain’t no thang… Germany’s set for the next round, so Ecuador might pick up the group if the Deutchlanders take it too easy.
  
• Match of the tourney so far? Croatia vs. Brasil. Great game, and even after Croatia lost, Croatia’s fans were rocking the stadium with pride at how their team gave Brasil all they could handle. Brasil played well, but seemed a bit hampered by the fact that Ronaldinho is perhaps the ugliest man on the planet.

*sigh* and then there was that other match… you know, the one where the US team was supposed to give a message to the world.

Yeah, well if the message was “Hey, you unwashed European-types, can one of you teach us how to play soccer?” I think you can safely say the Czechs heard us loud and clear.

Three nothing, and it should have been worse. Two goals for Tomas Rosicki (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.) and he’d nearly bagged a third.

Our defense was crap. Our midfield and offense would have been crap if they had bothered showing up at all.

Here’s the problem with the US: We have no stone-killers in our lineup. Not one. Eddie Johnson has some game, but only because he’s too young and foolish to be intimidated. All damn game, our guys are waiting for the ball, backs to the goal. “Not my job.” Losers, every damn one of them.

We need a Romario, “I am a striker. Give me the ball.” We need a guy who’s only decision point is “After I put this in, how long should I celebrate?”

The Czech’s top striker goes out with a hamstring around halftime and they don’t even notice. Us, we’re lucky to have one guy who remembers where the other net is.
“Excuse me, Pavel, could you direct me to your net…?”

So now it’s all on Saturday’s match vs. Italy. Win or go home. Mathematically, we could stay alive with a tie – but that’s like saying Trinidad and Tobago are still in it. Oh sure, hope springs eternal – and Italy could still feeb – but I’ve been down that road before (France 1998 i.e. LAST FREAKING PLACE), not doing that again.

No, I’m reserving my hope for teams like Ecuador and the Netherlands. Somebody’s got to stop Brasil from getting six.

Housekeeping

Of the numerous minor projects that have soaked up the hours recently, DSL is the by far the most distracting.

Yes, I’ve finally broadbanded and while I’m happy with the speed, there are a number of side effects that are turning into larger complications.

Case in point: My email address of six plus years is going away.

Anyone looking to reach me where you’ve been finding me all this time – sorry, but I’m gone. I’m at my gmail address, E’s at hers, and if I ever get all our subscriptions and logins consolidated into the new address, I’ll start telling people what it is.

On hold

E's with her dad now. I'm at work. Mom's been here with the boy for the week.

She's overhauled the entire house, and now we're headed north to join up with E. E's dad's showing all kinds of mixed signs, so there's no way to know what's next.

No weekend plans, E's back home next week, but not sure for how long. Her sister has taken family leave for the duration.

There is no elegant way for any of this to happen, so we do what we must - and the rest gets bumped.

All fall down

Five a.m., we get a phone call. It's E's sister, and so we brace. E's dad's in the hospital, and we're not expecting good news.

E's folks both have cancer. Her dad for a long time, her mom was diagnosed only late last year. Both are unable to drive, but manage to stay relatively independent.

Yesterday, E's dad felt so ill, that they called 911. Her dad began treatments while her mom waited. One of the nurses noticed that E's mom didn't look terribly well herself. She was examined, taken to the ER. and treated for pneumonia.

That was sixteen hours ago. Now E's sister is calling to tell us that the hospital doesn't believe E's mom will last the day.

We pack in a rush and are out the door before seven.

Eight thirty, we're still over an hour away, we get VM from her sister "Call me, now."
E's mother passed away at 8:12 a.m. We drive for ten minutes in stunned silence. E's sister was just up for the weekend to visit. Last week we'd been up - E's mom was fine. Hungry, active, upbeat.

Not the plan.