So on Friday, I go to an interview in Des Moines Iowa at an internal lab for a company, Darling International. They do food products analyzing for pesticides, protein content in animal fats, types fats in cooking oils etc. How was this one wierd?
First, I was told it was to be both the person and her boss. Just the person. No one else in the entire lab was there. While she was a lab person, and I'm a lab person, we walked through. Talked a little about bouncing around. All the while it seemed like I was being tested/quizzed over a variety of things, while she worked away at a variety of things.
Was I supposed to know everything she asked? Was I supposed to join in? What about my own protection until I read a chemical hygiene plan, read the MSDS of the area, etc I don't know what I'm being exposed to. I also wonder about chain of custody and validity of results. If I touch anything do I invalidate all their analysis? Just weird.
So now I'm in Minneapolis. Xin's training in SAS. Were going to meet my high school friend/teammate Aaron and his wife, but she's going to have surgery. Hope it goes well. She's too young and pretty to have these sort of eye problems.
What's downtown Minneapolis like? Well it's very nice. Lots of shops and office buildings all interconnected by a series of walk ways. It's called the Nicolet Mall, surprisingly because it is on Nicolet Blvd/St/Ave in the downtown area. There's Target, Macy's etc. The one complaint is that outside of Subway, all the food is a bit overpriced for the downtown expierence.
We're staying at the Ramada downtown (the university of Iowa will pay the final bill). There is a decent work out room for a hotel, the traditional weight station, exercise bike, 2 treadmills and a tv to watch while doing the deed. The pool is heated, and so far no unpleasant minors to kick out of the hot tub which is Xin's new favorite. It's also very relaxing after hard lifting. The rest of the place sucks. Double beds, crappy beat up, should be replaced, next to no channels on the TV, having to search hi and low for the remote, tub and bathroom very dated and no independent control of the light outside the bathroom and foyer. The worst of all is Xin and my reliance on free continental breakfasts at places we stay. This place has none (believe it or not, Super 8 Motels have a great breakfast). Had to search high and low before finding a Brugers Bagles.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Chimp In Chief
The Chimp in Chief is once again speaking, saying how fighting in Iraq makes us safer when even his own general lying for him and ruining his career says he cannot be sure that it is. Well here's to Bubbles W. Bush, hopefully the poop he throws will smack Dick Cheney, infuriating him and inducing his 245756th heart attack.
My God!!! I've hear turds make more sense than this, and smell better. No one with any brains will buy this. My wife, who is Chinese and not american, is going through her own faith development right now. She's deciding that maybe she wants to be Catholic because it doesn't say non-believers will go to hell or say that she's doomed to hell because she hasn't been baptized etc yet. She says due to all the young people that have died because of Iraq, George Bush will go to hell.
About the image, I did a search, Bush Chimp and got over 40000 images!!! See, I'm not alone. George, put down that piece of poop!!! It doesn't go up your nose!!! I mean it, George!!! When Dick gets in here, he'll screw things up more than you already have!!!
By the way, they don't hate us for our freedom. This isn't about right or wrong, or even Sept 11. This is about ideology and not taking a pot shot at daddy or regret from 15-20 years ago. Anyone who says differently either hasn't read anything by anyone with knowledge of the actual situation on the ground in the middle east or is an apologist for Bush.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
6 years and a day later?
Why write about the day of Sept 11 until after you see all the memorials and what not? For the most part there weren't that many on TV. The best I had to say was MSNBC's rebroadcast of the 2 hours of Today/NBC Breaking News report from the moment after the first plane hit for 2 consectutive hours.
I read another report on Huffington Post by Michael Smerconish I began to think. It was the expierence, the tenor, and the calm of Tom Brokaw that really brought it all home. Just as I'm sure it is Cronkite for my parents, it is wake of 9-11 that we lost most of the voices that brought us the news. Aaron Brown, fired from CNN. Tom Brokaw, retired from NBC. Dan Rather, resigned/fired from CBS. Peter Jennings, died from lung cancer due to smoking which he started again on 9-11. Fox, pretty sure it was Brit Hume but he's gone way over to how can anyone be against Bush than reporting what really happened that it's not news.
My wife didn't want to watch any of it because of the tragedy. I watched it because you forget what it was because this was really the only focus on events. Kidnapped blonde girls, black woman abducted by white supremacists were the other stories of the day. Only this morning on CNN was an interview with a group of young Iraqis, the wrong war btw, saying you can't send the US troops home, but they can't stay forever; there are no good solutions. We are in a global war, but are we fighting it in the right place and in the right ways?
Is it so ugly that absolutism, what we're fighting, can't be used against it? Can one ideology defeat another? Or is this a time for realism and letting the grown ups tell us what need to be done even if we don't like their recommendations? I'm all for letting the intelligence and military types (colonels and task force leaders) be given a relatively free hand in doing what needs to be done where it needs to be done. If they say it is Iraq, it's Iraq, but I bet they say its the Afghani/Pakistani boarder and Indonesia. I'm sure I won't like it. Actually, I'm pretty sure I'll be terrified of what they'll say.
Something has to be done. The Arab world has more of its population under 18 years old than any other ethnic group in the world.
The only thing I won't do is trade liberty for security. We are an open society. We should be more open and transparent. This way we can ensure everyone around the world, you're only hitting and hurting a people that accept all. Rebuild it, let them tear it down, rebuild it again. Every time it is torn down by agression and murder, it will rally more to our side and less to theirs.
I read another report on Huffington Post by Michael Smerconish I began to think. It was the expierence, the tenor, and the calm of Tom Brokaw that really brought it all home. Just as I'm sure it is Cronkite for my parents, it is wake of 9-11 that we lost most of the voices that brought us the news. Aaron Brown, fired from CNN. Tom Brokaw, retired from NBC. Dan Rather, resigned/fired from CBS. Peter Jennings, died from lung cancer due to smoking which he started again on 9-11. Fox, pretty sure it was Brit Hume but he's gone way over to how can anyone be against Bush than reporting what really happened that it's not news.
My wife didn't want to watch any of it because of the tragedy. I watched it because you forget what it was because this was really the only focus on events. Kidnapped blonde girls, black woman abducted by white supremacists were the other stories of the day. Only this morning on CNN was an interview with a group of young Iraqis, the wrong war btw, saying you can't send the US troops home, but they can't stay forever; there are no good solutions. We are in a global war, but are we fighting it in the right place and in the right ways?
Is it so ugly that absolutism, what we're fighting, can't be used against it? Can one ideology defeat another? Or is this a time for realism and letting the grown ups tell us what need to be done even if we don't like their recommendations? I'm all for letting the intelligence and military types (colonels and task force leaders) be given a relatively free hand in doing what needs to be done where it needs to be done. If they say it is Iraq, it's Iraq, but I bet they say its the Afghani/Pakistani boarder and Indonesia. I'm sure I won't like it. Actually, I'm pretty sure I'll be terrified of what they'll say.
Something has to be done. The Arab world has more of its population under 18 years old than any other ethnic group in the world.
The only thing I won't do is trade liberty for security. We are an open society. We should be more open and transparent. This way we can ensure everyone around the world, you're only hitting and hurting a people that accept all. Rebuild it, let them tear it down, rebuild it again. Every time it is torn down by agression and murder, it will rally more to our side and less to theirs.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Doping and the Dopes who don't get it
I'm going to take the time to post a little note that's been bouncing in my head about performance enhancing drugs in sports (aka doping).
Bicycle racing in America is irrelevant for the most part except for the days that Lance Armstrong or whatever American rider is behind/takes the lead and the day they finish in the Tour de France. Well this year, it was made totally irrelevant by entire teams being disqualified for taking banned substances.
I recently read the Game of Shadows by Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru of the San Fransisco Chronicle. This book servers partly as a the biography of Victor Conte, the history of his Bay Area Lab Cooperative (BALCO), and a sort of who's who of professional sports that Conte was involved with.
This isn't so much aimed at the athletes as much as it is the sports writers and fans who say such things as "it wan't against the rules" or "it doesn't matter". WRONG. Each sport in American has something called the morals clause meaning that the team can void the contract if the player gets involved with something illegal. Guess what? Posession of these drugs, doctor/pharmacy shopping, being involved in distribution of the drugs, as well as conspiricacy to do any of the above would be just some of the FELONIES committed by the athletes. That does not excuse the felonies or ethics/license violations of the doctors and pharmacists, but we don't know who some MD or PharmD is, we do know who our favorite players are.
So violation of the morals clause isn't enough for you? What about the fact that most of these are horomones, either peptide or glucocorticoids derived from cholesterol. These will radically effect your own endocrine system, reproductive system, and give leave you open to a higher chance of cancer? From what I know the only time any of the so called anabolic steroids or HGH should be subscribed is for conditions of primoridal dwarvism or in the case of muscle reattatchment surgery. Even than, it is at a does that is 100-1000x less than what is being taken by these cheats. Yes, so this is more directed to the players unions, if you don't want to test, than fine, you provide for medical costs for your players future cancers, testicles shrinking into nothing, sex changes for females, as well as behavior problems that can't even be predicted do to hormonal imbalance. It was so bad for NFL players of the 70s and early 80s that they had to instigate testing. They woke up, and moved onto new drugs that need to be detected and removed from the game. With diet and exercise, yes, players can be 6'8" and 330 lbs, but they don't look like a body builder or professional wrestler.
So players/public health and contractual reasons aren't enough, how about integrity of the game? Sports is usually about competition and overcoming either an opponent, time, distance, field/course, history, injury etc. By giving yourself an edge that you can't have naturally, why should I appreciate you?
That's one reason, beyond growing up, I would never go back to watching professional wrestling. First, the results are fixed. Second, they're all on something, and those bodies aren't capable of being like that withoug working out 8+ hours a day 24/7/365. How can being on the road 50 weeks a year get you that way? It can't without the wonders of pharmacology.
I gave up on baseball along time ago because it was boring. You didn't do anything. And when you got the chance to do something, I hadn't done anything in so long, my body couldn't respond. That's why I got into football. I've trained for 3-4 hours a day eating into my sleep schedule. It kept me active and alert. Track and field keeps one really moving. After 90 minutes of practice one is exhausted, add to it another 40 minutes for field events, and 30 in general weight training and I wonder how or if I ever did homework in high school.
What should be done about these cheats? First this is just as bad as gambling, gambling with one's life. They should be banned from the game, all test results and prescription trails handed over to the FBI/Police and clean them out and put them in jail. Next, their records should be either have asterisks or double daggers placed next to it. Finally, contracts and endorsement bonuses should be sought by their teams and corporations like NIKE and REEBOK. That's right, get your money back.
Bicycle racing in America is irrelevant for the most part except for the days that Lance Armstrong or whatever American rider is behind/takes the lead and the day they finish in the Tour de France. Well this year, it was made totally irrelevant by entire teams being disqualified for taking banned substances.
I recently read the Game of Shadows by Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru of the San Fransisco Chronicle. This book servers partly as a the biography of Victor Conte, the history of his Bay Area Lab Cooperative (BALCO), and a sort of who's who of professional sports that Conte was involved with.
This isn't so much aimed at the athletes as much as it is the sports writers and fans who say such things as "it wan't against the rules" or "it doesn't matter". WRONG. Each sport in American has something called the morals clause meaning that the team can void the contract if the player gets involved with something illegal. Guess what? Posession of these drugs, doctor/pharmacy shopping, being involved in distribution of the drugs, as well as conspiricacy to do any of the above would be just some of the FELONIES committed by the athletes. That does not excuse the felonies or ethics/license violations of the doctors and pharmacists, but we don't know who some MD or PharmD is, we do know who our favorite players are.
So violation of the morals clause isn't enough for you? What about the fact that most of these are horomones, either peptide or glucocorticoids derived from cholesterol. These will radically effect your own endocrine system, reproductive system, and give leave you open to a higher chance of cancer? From what I know the only time any of the so called anabolic steroids or HGH should be subscribed is for conditions of primoridal dwarvism or in the case of muscle reattatchment surgery. Even than, it is at a does that is 100-1000x less than what is being taken by these cheats. Yes, so this is more directed to the players unions, if you don't want to test, than fine, you provide for medical costs for your players future cancers, testicles shrinking into nothing, sex changes for females, as well as behavior problems that can't even be predicted do to hormonal imbalance. It was so bad for NFL players of the 70s and early 80s that they had to instigate testing. They woke up, and moved onto new drugs that need to be detected and removed from the game. With diet and exercise, yes, players can be 6'8" and 330 lbs, but they don't look like a body builder or professional wrestler.
So players/public health and contractual reasons aren't enough, how about integrity of the game? Sports is usually about competition and overcoming either an opponent, time, distance, field/course, history, injury etc. By giving yourself an edge that you can't have naturally, why should I appreciate you?
That's one reason, beyond growing up, I would never go back to watching professional wrestling. First, the results are fixed. Second, they're all on something, and those bodies aren't capable of being like that withoug working out 8+ hours a day 24/7/365. How can being on the road 50 weeks a year get you that way? It can't without the wonders of pharmacology.
I gave up on baseball along time ago because it was boring. You didn't do anything. And when you got the chance to do something, I hadn't done anything in so long, my body couldn't respond. That's why I got into football. I've trained for 3-4 hours a day eating into my sleep schedule. It kept me active and alert. Track and field keeps one really moving. After 90 minutes of practice one is exhausted, add to it another 40 minutes for field events, and 30 in general weight training and I wonder how or if I ever did homework in high school.
What should be done about these cheats? First this is just as bad as gambling, gambling with one's life. They should be banned from the game, all test results and prescription trails handed over to the FBI/Police and clean them out and put them in jail. Next, their records should be either have asterisks or double daggers placed next to it. Finally, contracts and endorsement bonuses should be sought by their teams and corporations like NIKE and REEBOK. That's right, get your money back.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Impeachment, Who I'll vote for, and other things
I wrote this back in March of this year: Since than, Gonzales has resigned.
First off, it is not criminal to be a bad manager, incompetent, and inflexible in every job save one, President of the United States. So evading why Bush should be impeached for negligent homicide or at least felony murder or involuntary manslaughter of ever soldier for the moment, I will say let's not impeach him. This could be due to improper number of troops, lying about intelligence/motives for war, going to war without proper equipment, not adjusting strategy while rebuilding was to have begun.
Basic civics here folks. Impeach Bush, which would never get the votes to convict in the Senate, would lead to President Dick Cheney. Impeach Cheney first, than find the most palatable Republican to get throgh the Senate (Hagel or Graham?) . Than impeach Bush. Like I said, not likely.
Next, the firing of US Attorneys. All of them were political appointees. So yes, the president can fire them. It just looks bad when it is done while they are investigating people on your side, it looks bad. Top it off, they're considered the 10 best or so in the nation, and all their replacements are buddies of your chief aide with little or no qualifications, there's a problem. If this was your end goal, than at the change of terms between the first and second four years, remove them all. Now here's where it becomes criminal. No matter what, under oath or not, if you lie to Congress it is perjury. We have an attorney general who committed perjury. Negligent? Intentional? Incompetent? If the answer is yes to any of these, this man should be removed from office either by the president or Congress. This is the sole cabinet position in which they both serve and irritate the president. Instead of rewardign competency, this administration rewards loyalty and service to ideology. Is it any wonder that any minor disaster or event ins magnified not just due to natural (Hurricane Katrina) or unnatural (Sept 11, Iraq, Afghanistan) events? You can gage the supposed events of normal person/reaction to evidence, but when you're loyalty is to an idea, you are inflexible.
Maybe there is an increased number of investigations now that my party is back in legislative power. Maybe there is an increased number of problems because eventually after 6+ years in any administration abuses and scandals are uncovered from years before by reporters and public at large. The sad realization is that in this case it is due to the fact that these guys are really as incompetent as they seem, perfect administration for a time like the 1990s, but imperfect in a world that is constantly evolving and changing. The fact was that after so long out of power, and with their own party in the White House, the Republican Congress was afraid to look at it's own dirty laundry.
There is one tactic they keep bringing out. Anytime you dissent, or go against the president, you are a traitor and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But when the troops are asked, what do you think about the dissent, they respond that it is great because some one is asking what is in their best interest. They are glad to have a party that will put the pressure on a defense department that is more interested in a missile defense when the primary enemy of the day is a non-nation state loose network with no manufacturing infrastructure. Last time I checked, one needed a pretty advanced factory and tech level to build a missile capable of going across an ocean. If the scenarios are true, and they're worried about a sleeper cell launching a missile, a missile shield capable of shooting an ICBM down is useless against a shoulder fired weapon that won't get farther than the neighboring 'burb. I'm pretty sure if you asked the troops they'd want more armor plating, body armor, and spare parts for the things already there.
So who will I vote for? I don't know. Obama brings hope, but he's been a Senator only, both state and federal. Hillary is just a Senator who does know how to do the backroom deal but just as we tire of Bush, will we have Clinton fatigue as well? Last sitting Senator elected, Kennedy. Johnson was sitting VP/acting president, not senator when elected. this country likes governors. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon were all state executives. That sort of puts Richardson in the driver seat. He's got foriegn policy behind him, Hispanic, but is he willing to risk the wrath of his former boss? I don't know. The good thing about being in Iowa, is that I'll be inundated in the next 6 months or so. I'll have a good idea by next fall who I'll vote for in the Caucus and than again in the election.
Some ramblings.
PS now in September of 2007...I'm leaning towards Hillary more because Obama is self imploding and Richardson just can't seem to gain the charisma needed despite saying all the right things. Of course, this is a caucus, so I may as well just say Richardson and hope the others in the state outside of Johnson County do the same.
First off, it is not criminal to be a bad manager, incompetent, and inflexible in every job save one, President of the United States. So evading why Bush should be impeached for negligent homicide or at least felony murder or involuntary manslaughter of ever soldier for the moment, I will say let's not impeach him. This could be due to improper number of troops, lying about intelligence/motives for war, going to war without proper equipment, not adjusting strategy while rebuilding was to have begun.
Basic civics here folks. Impeach Bush, which would never get the votes to convict in the Senate, would lead to President Dick Cheney. Impeach Cheney first, than find the most palatable Republican to get throgh the Senate (Hagel or Graham?) . Than impeach Bush. Like I said, not likely.
Next, the firing of US Attorneys. All of them were political appointees. So yes, the president can fire them. It just looks bad when it is done while they are investigating people on your side, it looks bad. Top it off, they're considered the 10 best or so in the nation, and all their replacements are buddies of your chief aide with little or no qualifications, there's a problem. If this was your end goal, than at the change of terms between the first and second four years, remove them all. Now here's where it becomes criminal. No matter what, under oath or not, if you lie to Congress it is perjury. We have an attorney general who committed perjury. Negligent? Intentional? Incompetent? If the answer is yes to any of these, this man should be removed from office either by the president or Congress. This is the sole cabinet position in which they both serve and irritate the president. Instead of rewardign competency, this administration rewards loyalty and service to ideology. Is it any wonder that any minor disaster or event ins magnified not just due to natural (Hurricane Katrina) or unnatural (Sept 11, Iraq, Afghanistan) events? You can gage the supposed events of normal person/reaction to evidence, but when you're loyalty is to an idea, you are inflexible.
Maybe there is an increased number of investigations now that my party is back in legislative power. Maybe there is an increased number of problems because eventually after 6+ years in any administration abuses and scandals are uncovered from years before by reporters and public at large. The sad realization is that in this case it is due to the fact that these guys are really as incompetent as they seem, perfect administration for a time like the 1990s, but imperfect in a world that is constantly evolving and changing. The fact was that after so long out of power, and with their own party in the White House, the Republican Congress was afraid to look at it's own dirty laundry.
There is one tactic they keep bringing out. Anytime you dissent, or go against the president, you are a traitor and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But when the troops are asked, what do you think about the dissent, they respond that it is great because some one is asking what is in their best interest. They are glad to have a party that will put the pressure on a defense department that is more interested in a missile defense when the primary enemy of the day is a non-nation state loose network with no manufacturing infrastructure. Last time I checked, one needed a pretty advanced factory and tech level to build a missile capable of going across an ocean. If the scenarios are true, and they're worried about a sleeper cell launching a missile, a missile shield capable of shooting an ICBM down is useless against a shoulder fired weapon that won't get farther than the neighboring 'burb. I'm pretty sure if you asked the troops they'd want more armor plating, body armor, and spare parts for the things already there.
So who will I vote for? I don't know. Obama brings hope, but he's been a Senator only, both state and federal. Hillary is just a Senator who does know how to do the backroom deal but just as we tire of Bush, will we have Clinton fatigue as well? Last sitting Senator elected, Kennedy. Johnson was sitting VP/acting president, not senator when elected. this country likes governors. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon were all state executives. That sort of puts Richardson in the driver seat. He's got foriegn policy behind him, Hispanic, but is he willing to risk the wrath of his former boss? I don't know. The good thing about being in Iowa, is that I'll be inundated in the next 6 months or so. I'll have a good idea by next fall who I'll vote for in the Caucus and than again in the election.
Some ramblings.
PS now in September of 2007...I'm leaning towards Hillary more because Obama is self imploding and Richardson just can't seem to gain the charisma needed despite saying all the right things. Of course, this is a caucus, so I may as well just say Richardson and hope the others in the state outside of Johnson County do the same.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
First Post
Something will be coming here soon. Maybe I'll finally get serious about an online series of writings, rants, and raves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)