text:
Challenge Cache Ideas
By thebruce0, June 28, 2016 in Geocaching Topics
+thebruce0 1788
thebruce0 1788
With the new and still-evolving Challenge Cache Guidelines, I thought it might be helpful to have a thread in which we can share our experiences with what challenge ideas have been allowed, what have been denied (and why), and what is or may actually be possible.
We all know that basic concepts are certainly allowed - # Finds with X property - as long as the property is available to the Live API for Project-GC scripting (or other 3rd party checker sites if/when they open).
But what sorts of ideas are people coming up with that could be considered more creative, while not crossing the line of what's "appealing and attainable by a reasonable number of cachers"? If you see any new challenge caches published that seem like a neat idea, share them here. It'll help inform us of what's possible and even how they can be packaged, as it were, to be enjoyable or acceptable, and it can help us understand how the reviewers make their judgements (dependend on region).
Some points to remember that we know about the process, to help us avoid a lot of frustration and angst:
* No precedent - a challenge published by one reviewer does not guarantee a similar challenge will or should be published by another.
* Let's not make this a debate thread about the challenge cache concept. Disagreements on opinions should be taken up privately with the reviewers or other cachers.
* The other massive challenge thread could be used for discussion about challenge caches in general; let's use the epic "creative cache containers" thread as a model for this one
* Let's try to respect the guidelines as they evolve
Some reference (thx AnnaMoritz):
* Documentation of Project-GC LUA functions
* List of available API functions available to PGC
* Summary of potential upcoming functions for PGC
(btw it was suggested that I begin a new thread, so I'm hoping this topic is sufficiently different and specific to warrant its own )
Edited June 28, 2016 by thebruce0
To start, I noticed in the discussion that user-polygons are no longer allowed for location-based challenges. Per point #10 Source of Criteria, this clause was just added as a denial example: "Challenges based on user-defined mapping polygons."
Having attempted to publish a series of caches I felt was creative and allowed according to the guidelines, even having checkers written that can do the check, but having those challenge recently denied due to having "arbitrary requirements", this new polygon clause emphasized that decision in my mind.
I had intended to publish challenges for which you had to match a design on the DT or Year grid for spots having a minimum number of finds. For example, have days in the Found year grid with at least 2 finds that complete the design of a 10x11 'phoon' pattern (if you've completed the grid twice over, you already qualify). Scripted and checkable, verified and working. But, the denial point was that patterns are very arbitrary and could lead to an endless stream of 'pattern' challenges, which they feel isn't really emphasizing "geocaching" in so much as pattern-matching (ie bookkeeping).
So, I think there's a level of "arbitrary" in both pattern matching and user-defined polygons (how many polygon 'shapes' should be allowed, how does a reviewer judge whether a shape is reasonable, etc). The latter has the additional hurdle of not being checkable on gc.com, but it's something to keep in mind. Perhaps a way to look at it is the difference between collecting simple properties to match at varying degrees of quantity vs playing with puzzle pieces. *shrug*
I've changed my series theme entirely and am waiting for confirmation now on whether these new ideas are allowed (which I'd be surprised if not since they really are re-packaged version of challenges that do exist; but hopefully with a enough of a twist to seem 'newish')
I'm keeping an updated bookmark list of Ontario post-moratorium challenges (since Ontario seems to tend to be one of the more challenge-heavy reviewer-challenging regions ) and to see what's getting published.
Here's another good idea published in the UK - the challenge itself is straight forward, but they added the creative part as an optional task (GC6KTF3)
- Find a cache in 10 different countries, then optionally use the first letters of those countries and spell a word for Scrabble points.
Sounds like fun and I could easily qualify for it. Too bad the final is 3300 miles away. For those that have found caches in a lot of countries, they'll have a more "first letters" that can be used to from Scrabble points with a high number of points. I noticed that the only log on that cache is from someone that posted a note just to say that they're ignoring the cache.
+Team Microdot 981
Team Microdot 981
I noticed that the only log on that cache is from someone that posted a note just to say that they're ignoring the cache.
That's not unusual
Here's another one (GC6KA9P)
- Have 500 finds for each weekday. I didn't even think of that level of parsing down the find date.
Likewise GC6JXPP for Monday-Friday
One type that was published both pre- and post-moratorium, the US 'electoral' challenge (eg GC6K12M)
- Find caches in states each with an electoral college vote allocation count, so the total sum of the found states hits the minimum 270 "votes to become president".
As this was published post-moratorium, it appears to still be allowed. One could argue that following this design, it would be possible to arbitrarily assign numeric values to 'categories' of properties, and require a minimum total of qualified matches. Probably not nearly as 'arbitrary' as a loose pattern... but for instance, what if the numbers assigned to each state were, say, the number of letters in the states' names? Find caches in enough states to accumulate a minimum sum name-length total to qualify. Ohio (4) wouldn't help as much as Mississippi (11).
One more for now (GC6GAMW)
- Find 100 caches placed by people whose accounts were created in or before 2009.
Just thought that was an interesting way of using the cache owner's anniversary date.
+The Magna Defender 203
The Magna Defender 203
The only challenges published recently near me are just for the rich people who can afford to go on holiday all over the world. It's a farce that Groundspeak banned time based challenges saying they were unattainable. I'll say it's a lot easier finding 10 virtual caches in a day than find caches on three continents 😡
+CanadianRockies 3
CanadianRockies 3
CanadianRockies
Perhaps it's simply a miscommunication between the CO and the reviewer, but there's a challenge cache in the United Kingdom (GC6M9BN) where the owner claims they're not allowed to require geocachers to completely fill in their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars (Feb. 29 must be allowed to remain empty). I understand that streak challenges are limited to 365 days, but this is the first I've heard about limiting the Finds calendar to 365 days.
Interestingly, that same challenge is allowed to require geocachers to completely fill in their "Finds by Hidden Date" calendars (including Feb. 29).
Item 10 of the challenge cache guidelines indicates that challenges are not acceptable if they use "These listing elements: cache titles, cache owner names, GC Codes, publishing Reviewer or listing text."
Yet there's a recently published challenge in New Zealand (GC6JP5P) that requires geocachers to find 9 D5 Mystery caches with all nine terrain ratings (1-5). But none of these Mystery caches can be challenge caches. The Project-GC challenge checker will reject any caches whose title includes the word "Challenge" or "BGSc" (there's a set of four "BGSc" [bachelor of Geocaching Science] challenges in New Zealand that don't have the word "challenge" in their titles).
I guess the reviewer decided challenge caches cannot require cache titles INCLUDE particular words but it's okay to EXCLUDE certain words.
It will be interesting to see whether the challenge cache owner will override the Project-GC challenge checker and allow geocachers to claim finds for puzzle caches that aren't challenge caches but do include the word "challenge" in their titles (e.g., GC1EBMX).
And what will the challenge cache owner do about the many other challenge caches that don't have the word "challenge" in their titles (e.g., GC2K1CD)?
Edited June 29, 2016 by CanadianRockies
The only challenges published recently near me are just for the rich people who can afford to go on holiday all over the world.
If you ignore the one you got FTF on yesterday that didn't require those things.
It does seem that one man's meat is another man's poision - but it doesn't help when people make claims that don't fit the facts
There are also a lot of cachers that go out caching every day in order to maintain their find a cache a day streak. I would imagine that it they didn't do that they'd save enough money on gas for a bit of travel. For someone living in Europe it's relatively easy to travel to three continents and with 44 countries it's a lot easier to do find caches in N countries in Europe than someone in the U.S. I suspect that I would have to drive further to find 10 virtuals here than driving to 6 countries in Europe. I'm not rich by any means but I've found caches in 10 countries in Europe (24 total on 4 continents) but not while on holiday. I'm paid to travel for work and I believe that I've *earned* that benefit.
+redsox_mark 144
redsox_mark 144
Regular Unleaded Member
I have a friend who placed a "Finds for each day of the year" cache before the new guidelines - in 2014 (also in the UK), and he was told it could only be 365, not 366. GC4X2BJ I don't think there was a communication issue in this case. Whether that was just one reviewers opinion or consistent across the UK I can't say.
I did this at the end of 2013 - and there's a live checker for it - https://coord.info/GC4VT4X
I like that idea.
And I like it much more than if it was based on the number of letters in the state's name. Only because as published it has a theme, while number of letters seems more arbitrary. But that is a personal judgement call about what is interesting, which Reviewers should't have to do.
I qualify; but it is 155 miles as the crow flies, and ~200 as the car drives. But one day...
I can get a scrabble score of 20 with Quaich. I may be able to do better; I have 28 countries so lots of possibilities.
Filling a finds by Date Placed year grid to 366 is different than a 365 day streak that can't be 366. You could theoretically fill the Date Placed year grid in one day, or ten years; the limit is just for streak challenges. In a way I can understand the exclusion of Feb 29th, although there's nothing saying a 366 day streak requires Feb 29th. The difference between 365 and 366 really is, well, just one day, any day, so that streak limit feels a little arbitrary.
Oh I agree, just gave that as a counter example
As for countries, I only have 2, and will probably only have 2 for years. Unless I can get up to Newfoundland and hop over the water to get a cache in St Pierre Miquelon So all those country challenges of at least 3, or distance challenges of say 5000+ kms between two caches - out of reach for me, but I wouldn't consider that a loss. I consider those challenges a bonus reward for those who do have that achievement. Don't gotta find ev'ry cache!
Ah - now I geddit!
A STREAK which had to include leap day could only be worked toward one year out of every four - that's why they don't like it!
Edited June 29, 2016 by Team Microdot
And in my example case, it wasn't just a streak. The reviewer didn't like a fill in your finds by day which required 366, as if you just missed it, you would have to wait 4 years until the next Feb 29th came around. But not in all cases, as yours was published.
Right, a mere streak of 366 days I think would be classified as disallowed, even if it didn't require Feb29th, which is sort of odd. A streak of 366 requiring Feb29th I can understand being disallowed.
But a challenge completing the Placed Date 366 year grid being disallowed may be a misunderstand, and might still get published if the reviewer could be convinced, since it's not a streak challenge in any sense of the term and shouldn't be denied.
But what about "Finds for Each Day of the Year" which require all 366 days? Not placed date. They don't need to be a streak; it can be over several years. But a new cacher (or not new who doesn't have a find on 29 Feb) would not be able to qualify until Feb 2020.
I have seen both examples of this being allowed and denied (pre-moratorium). And not sure what the current view on these are.
True, not sure how a non-streak challenge that requires a find on Feb 29th would be judged.
We could of course just ask a local reviewer (which would of course just indicate how they would make the call, based on their general understanding of reviewer consensus yadda yadda no precedent yadda )
Among certain geocachers, there seems to be an attitude of "I must find every cache in my area." Groundspeak could embrace the wonderful diversity that geocaching offers and try to educate folks that not every geocache will appeal to and be attainable within a year by every geocacher.
Well, it seems we have a new fine print to consider.
As mentioned in another thread, we now have a limit on latitude/longitude challenges. I've had a couple of my proposed challenges also denied for having finds within specific degrees and/or combination latitude/longitude, on the basis, first, that it could be seen as a user-defined polygon; then after a lengthy defense of why that's not the case, and finds within a lat/lon are virtually identical to finds with a country or state (property lookup, no calculations, no polygons), it appears that the limitation is now explicitly confined to "geographic areas: countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)" or in my case worded as"[denied because] finds would need to be within an area that is other than a recognized geographic map/country/province/regional boundary"
So, I'm interpreting this as disallowing requiring specific latitude or longitude degrees (limiting finds to boundaries that are not "recognized geographic boundaries", even though major degrees is just as easy to check as country/state); but it does appear that challenges requiring finds with an open-ended count of such ranges is allowed - for example: 'have a minimum number of finds within each of three latitude degrees'. In this latter case, finds aren't bound to a region. They could be anywhere in the world, but you can require groups as collected into such boundaries.
It appears that counties are the sole exception here - since they must have externally defined polygons in order for algorithms to check qualifications. Country and State are cache property lookups, just as are major degrees, but they simply aren't allowing boundaries defined by degrees. That's quite unfortunate.
Edited July 11, 2016 by thebruce0
+fuzziebear3 63
fuzziebear3 63
It almost feels like every time someone comes up with an idea that might make a challenge cache, the rules get changed to disallow that type of challenge cache.
+fizzymagic 434
fizzymagic 434
That's odd -- a brand-new challenge that requires caches be found above and below certain latitudes was just published this weekend in my area.
Are finds restricted to a degree boundary? Degree differences aren't the same (eg, 2 caches separated by 90 degrees). Not sure I understand "above and below certain latitudes", unless you mean it's a exclusionary list (like 'any degrees except x,y,z', no idea how that would be judged tho).
I'm guessing the rule is applied something like only caches within degree # latitude/longitude. Though N degrees with X finds is allowable, for example.
The challenge is to find a cache above the Arctic Circle and a cache below the Antarctic Circle. It's a good challenge, and one I would like to do!
+Nomex 89
Nomex 89
Archived (as I didn't see a way to salvage it), after an alert Reviewer who shall remain nameless, alerted me of further clarification on the "user defined polygon" restriction.
Moving along....nothing to see here.
+AnnaMoritz 64
AnnaMoritz 64
Why can't the Bi-Polar-Challenge stay alive if changed to 'find two caches - one north and one south of equator - that are seperated by at least 130.5° of latitude when adding the north and south degrees (without minus sign) of the caches.'?
Until now such 'minimum x (or a certain range) between any two caches'-challenges were allowed for longitude and distance.
I fail to see the substantial difference between the until now allowed 'well travelled' - distance range from a given point (for challenges, as home coordinates are not allowed for that purpose), the allowed degree longitude separation, the allowed (sum of) distance between caches and latitude separation.
Edited July 12, 2016 by AnnaMoritz
+niraD 2223
niraD 2223
To me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to salvage the challenge. And there are no "user-defined polygons", so unless Groundspeak comes up with another new restriction on challenges...
I think that may be a matter of wording. If it's restrictive to the bounds of the upper and lower circle., not allowed. But it's a difference in degrees from one to the other, the two could theoretically be anywhere in the world. Especially if taking longitude into consideration (such as 90 degrees between N45 W80 and N45 E100).
I really fail to see how latitude/longitude degrees is arbitrary in the same manner as user-defined polygons, and they are as defined and recognized (especially in geocaching) as Country and State are, even in the cache listing data, and more stright forward defined than Counties, without external data. But, if they are changing "user-defined polygons" to a specific set of allowed boundaries (Country, State/Province, Counties [polygon exception]), then.. *sigh*. Still should see that outlined in the guidelines, especially if they are retroactively archiving new challenges that are brought to their attention. =/
It really isn't clear in the guidelines, as written, that lat/lon degrees are also disallowed challenge requirements.(and it'll help reduce confusion in the future)
cezanne 11
It seems that right now almost everyone has their own interpretation of what the rules in the help center article could mean, reviewers included.
Apparently I was right early on when I stated that the rule that only data are acceptable that are checkable on gc.com is to be interpreted in the strictest manner (eliminating many interesting challenge caches). The issue that showed up now about laditude/longitude even surprised me.
In retrospect it seems that it would be easier to list explicitely all what is allowed (not much anyhow). This reduced confusion and leaves cachers with realistic expectations and also shows them that the new challenge caches are just a badge system coupled with a cache - the old creative element of some (not all) challenge caches is gone.
Creativity in stats can really only be shown in limited ways of combining certain requirements.
Just published nearby - 4 cache types of each of the 9 DTs on the line from 1/1 through 5/5. Each DT is expilcitly listed so as to avoid the 'pattern' clause. That may be about as creative as one might be able to get, at least insofar as the data goes.
Presentation is really the only other channel by which to show creativity in a challenge cache. How can you 'clothe' the challenge to make it fun to look at, read, or 'play', despite the challenge itself being relatively cookie-cutter?
There's always the other option of making certain challenge aspects optional.
+rragan 7
rragan 7
I too had problems with the rejection of the Bi-Polar challenge. Guideline 10 (user-defined polygons) was the cited reason. Lines of latitude are not under user control, unlike polygon sets. Is it fair to say that the new guidelines allow only country,state, county and any other way to define is not allowed? If so, a small clarification would eliminate the ambiguity.
That said, it still seems like there ought to be at least a point and radius definition since some counties are very large and provide very little granularity in terms of defining an area. This is still easily checkable -- witness the .1 mile radius circles between caches.
Oh, and why aren't continents an allowed region?
Particularly since it's hard to imagine a justification for most of the new restrictions -- how can limiting by latitude make it harder to review? -- so neither reviewer nor CO can fall back to considering what the reasonable interpretation should be. In this case, the latitude limit in the guidelines served no purpose except to create more work for the reviewers.
I'm sad we're resorting to "salvaging" perfectly reasonable challenges, especially when neither of us can avoid seeing your last point: we may be able to salvage this challenge by changing the wording, but one has to wonder whether GS will then see that they need to "plug the hole" in the guidelines with yet more restrictions. Who can say since we don't know why they're rejecting polygons to begin with?
Trying to be charitable, I can imagine that there might have been issues where someone wanted to define a polygon for the boundary of a park, or for the city limits for an incorporated city. Such boundaries are often messy, especially when traditionally "easy to see" landmarks are used, like a creek, or a winding road. Maybe the need to verify such "user-defined polygons" became an issue.
But in the process, they seem to have banned other "user-defined polygons" that aren't hard to verify at all, like the ones used for the Bi-Polar Challenge, or USGS map quadrangles, or any number of other latitude-/longitude-based challenges.
I hope there's something more going on behind the scenes with this one, because on the surface, it seems... poorly considered.
+mblatch 0
mblatch 0
I'm usually not a huge fan of challenges in general, but these location-based challenges I actually do like. Personally, I think the user-defined polygon definition is being applied too broadly. Challenges where boundaries can be easily verified, such as DeLorme Grids, USGS maps, counties, latitude/longitude lines, etc should be permitted. With a broad interpretation like this, even challenges wanting a cacher to find caches in different countries wouldn't be allowed because technically the boundaries of a country can be construed as a user-defined polygon.
Country, state and county boundaries all require polygons to define. PGC has all the definitions and checkers rely on them. They even sometimes tweak the definition when they find it is inaccurate. From guideline 10
"Challenge cache criteria must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com and must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com."
To pick an example that is problematic, county boundary info is not broadly available on geocaching.com nor is it verifiable there. It is verifiable with checkers on PGC that has "official" county boundary polygons. The last part of guidelines explicitly adds counties which sort of dodges the issue with them in the first bullet point in guideline 10.
Although every cache has a unique identifier for the country and States/Province, there isn't a field for "county". A checker on PGC that is using "official" county boundary polygons (which are available from a site created and maintained in my department) is *deriving* county data from some other source using data available on geocaching.com. For example, Lat/Long coordinates can be used to look up place names simply by calling a publicly available service (e.g. Geonames). It isn't even necessary to use polygons and math to determine whether the coordinates for a cache is within that polygon. I'm not sure why counties are allowed as an exception because determining which county a cache is in essentially requires the same process (using data available on geocaching.com to derived additional data) as it would to determine what city a cache is in, or it's elevation.
Correct, Country and State don't require polygons.
Country: Listing field, text, verified (not free entry)
State: Listing field, text, verified
County: Determined by posted coordinates, must be tested to reside within an externally defined polygon.
Latitude/Longitude*: Listing property, numeric coordinates, required to be accurate to publish
* Lat/Lon could be displayed as decimal degrees, or in various other forms or systems. As stored, they always include the major degrees. As such, they become as defined as the Country and State fields.
However, just as County is an exception to the polygon clause, Lat/Lon seems to be the negative exception to the clause. Perhaps they've opted for County in lieu of Lat/Lon for challenges. Which, if the point is to allow more global access to challenge qualification, seems contradictory - allowing a latitude or longitude boundary would still span the entire globe (or half). Combining a latitude and longitude would be more akin to County, but even so, there's still no polygon - that's 'square' is inferred by the resulting area. Ultimately it's merely a field lookup like Country/State.
But anyway.
I think it's safe to say, they are (at this point) running by the explicit rule that the only cache-finding boundaries allowed are Country, State/Province, and County (or locally defined geographic equivalent). All else, denied (user-defined poly or otherwise).
I wouldn't be surprised if you were right, but it just makes me even more annoyed since the only reason people have to define these conceivably inaccurate polygons to begin with is because the challenge can't just be "In Central Park" since that clear and obvious location can't be checked mechanically.
This is reminding me that, like the word list challenges, we discussed in depth how the checking requirement wouldn't be that bad since "it's easy" to define park boundaries with polygons. Most of that thread was project GC experts assuring us the checker requirement wouldn't wipe out as many popular challenge caches as we feared, but now I think every one of the examples raised and discussed in that context has been explicitly prohibited, so we needn't have worried about whether they'd be inadvertently prohibited.
It's hard to see it these days, but I'm a huge fan of GS and reviewers and am entirely willing to bend over backwards twice to make everyone's job easier. So I'm sad to realize that I've become convinced that you're absolutely right while being entirely wrong: there is, indeed, more going on behind the scenes, but it's not something good, it's just that someone wants to wipe out challenge caches while making it seem as if it's all our fault that they couldn't continue supporting them.
And I'm doing my darndest to try to find ways to work within the guidelines to still produce fun/interesting challenge caches. It's getting harder and harder every day, seeing the only options as regurgitated challenges already published often around the world, based on just playing with basic numbers and minimums of rather simplistic, common find stats.
Patterns, of any kind, the best area for unique creativity, are disallowed.
Location-based challenges even so broad as latitude and longitude degrees, disallowed.
On one level, I can grok some of the reasoning behind them, but on the other hand, I too think the decisions made have a more damaging effect on challenge caches in the long run. While the desire to publish something 'new' may have led people towards the "who can out-cache everyone else" mentality of challenges, cutting that out entirely means there's little inspiration to actually even attempt to be creative and interesting.
As a cacher, all I have to do is maximize all my numbers, and I'll qualify for any challenge that may get published from there on out. Challenges lose their draw, their beauty, their uniqueness, their intrigue. Yep, intrigue
blargh.
Really hoping there are people who can find neat ways to use the system and still get creative challenges published.
As we've been discussing the increasing limits, I went to track down "that other thread" where people were discussing Challenge Cache Ideas so I could be encouraged by seeing what new ideas they've been coming up with. I was embarrassed to realize it's this thread, where we've been doing nothing but discussing the rapidly shrinking circle of what's allowed.
It's gotten to the point where I'm reluctant to point to any fresh challenge cache ideas because the most likely result is the cache being retroactively prohibited by a new rule or a new interpretation of an old rule.
Well heck, apparently you can indirectly mention that a challenge idea exists and somehow it'll get tracked down (as noted in this thread) .
Then again, it's certainly not hard to pull a daily list of worldwide challenge caches and find it easily and quickly, since they're published so rarely.
That said, from my glancing over the current list of V2 challenges worldwide, most are fairly cookie-cutter versions of classic challenge ideas.
That's not to say that it's not worth publishing such typical concepts in our own areas, but if looking for creativity, it's hard to see any stand out from the crowd.
+Rebore 78
Rebore 78
I too had problems with the rejection of the Bi-Polar challenge. Guideline 10 (user-defined polygons) was the cited reason.
In my opinion the Bi-Polar challenge doesn't meet the standard for criteria "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify."
I think there are plenty of cachers travelling between Europe, America and Asia, but very little visiting the polar circles. It's quite strange that TPTB argued with user defined polygons.
I hear you, but, at the same time, because of GS's desire to make such restrictions concrete, all the CO had to do was show that a few local cachers had already achieved it -- which for some reason wasn't hard to do in that area, apparently -- and it no longer mattered that it was, by any reasonable standard, completely impossible. (Again, note that I'm entirely against appeal as a requirement to begin with, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency between the goals, the rules, and the results.)
It wasn't up for long and 5 people passed the checker.
That is more than I thought. Don't get me wrong, even a Three Poles Challenge (including Mt. Everest) would be much more appealing to me than what is permitted now, even if I would never be able to do it. It seems GS is taking the same road as with events some time ago - kill the interesting ones (for me). AnnaMoritz showed a way how it could be rephrased to fulfill the current guidelines, but I guess quite a few owners will simply stop hiding challenges at all.
In a week or two (hopefully if things go well) PGC will reopen script authoring to new folks. I have a script ready to go which could provide another style of challenge that should comply with the guidelines. *tease*


text:
It's Just One of Those Weeks
Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda simply is not a state party to the Convention, is a terrorist group and as such its members were not entitled to prisoner of war status - Joe Lieberman
I agree with you, Judge Gonzales, to give Geneva Convention protection to Al Qaida and other people like Al Qaida would in the long run undermine the purpose of the Geneva Convention. You would be giving a status in the law to people who do not deserve it, which would erode the convention. - Sen. Lindsey Graham
Al Quaeda (sic) and Taliban individuals . . . are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. -- Donald Rumsfeld
We conclude that these treaties (Geneva Convention) do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization. -- Justice Dept. Memo to Dept. of Defense, January 9, 2002
On January 18, I advised you [the President] that the department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPWIII) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised that the DOJ's opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and accordingly that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW. -- Gonzalez Memo, January 25, 2002
A US judge has ordered the Bush administration to release more than 100 new photographs and videos of abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib....It is not known exactly what the 144 photographs and videos depict, but they are from the same sources as the graphic images of prisoners being piled up on top of each other, threatened by attack dogs and forced into sexually compromising positions that triggered scandal and outrage just over a year ago....Government lawyers argued that releasing the photographs would reveal the prisoners' identities, a violation of their rights under the Geneva Conventions. -- The Independent
posted by Jane Hamsher @ 6/04/2005 08:54:00 PM
Doh!!!!
Stem cell research seems to be the mother of all GOP wedge issues -- people like Orin Hatch don't mind whacking a few embryos if their own aging carcasses stand to benefit. But I've been operating under the presumption that the stem cell veto is a big payday for the fundies. Oh, Grasshopper. When will you learn?
seesdifferent writes:
As a physician, I would suggest that when the history of big pharma is written, it will not be pretty. One of their major crimes is the constant reworking of old drugs, grabbing a patent on some minor molecular change, and then trumpeting these very minor (and sometimes bad) alterations as the new magic bullet. It's the cheap way to go, and the profitable way to go. Their advertising methods are considered unethical by all (okay all but six people), but that's what they need, to sell these "wonder drugs".
The result is often that 10 years down the road somebody discovers that these drugs are no better and actually kill people. Meanwhile, big pharma has bagged a billion in profits, and, thanks to the Thugs liability laws, will not have to answer for it. This strategy works best for mass-produced, mass-consumed drugs which do not actually cure anything, but rather create some sort of mental/emotional, if not physical, addiction to the little bottle of pills.
Okay, enough of a rant on that. The point is that big pharma wants its own patents of cheaply researched, not very great drugs, mass-market knockoffs.
Just the opposite of what will come from stem cell therapies.
Now, what do you think happens with public funding of stem cell research labs, with the goal of creating cures for relatively uncommon conditions?
Well, firstly, the patents belong to the universities. Too bad about that. And the markets will not be mass enough for big pharma's taste. Sorry, cancer is not a mass market. hmm bottom line looks pretty bad...
Secondly, if people are actually cured, they will not need all this painkiller stuff, insulin, other kinds of drugs for the symptoms of disease, that is the backbone of big pharma. CURES=NO DISEASE=NO DRUGS NEEDED=NO BIG PHARMA PROFITS=NO BIG PHARMA.
Big pharma had the fantasy of controlling the whole embryo research thing with their own money. Turns out that they forgot about Korea, Great Britain, California....whoops...I think that big pharmas plan has failed. Massive government funding of experienced labs eat big pharma every time.
So now Bush is holding the bag for big pharma's selfish miscalculation.
You would think by now I would've figured out that whenever BushCo. appears to be paying off the fundies, it's usually a cover for something that stands to benefit big business (conveniently, anti-choice judges happen to be pro-big business, too). I've got a new slogan I like: "Cheney '08: Killing People for Pfizer." The Halliburton thing could use a little retooling.
posted by Jane Hamsher @ 6/04/2005 10:16:00 AM
Jingo Bells
The US Military now confirms five, count 'em, FIVE cases of mishandling of the Koran. Hmmm. Let's take a trip down memory lane:
Newsweek, in reckless pursuit of a scoop that might score the daily double of embarrassing the Bush administration while heaping more disrepute on the Left's favorite punching bag, Guantanamo Bay, falsely reported a martial toilet-flushing of the Koran. -- Andrew McCarthy, NRO
This story has been marked by two features, I think: lousy reporting, and a desperate desire on the part of leftists worldwide to believe that assertions made by Guantanamo detainees, no matter how outlandish and uncorroborated, are true. -- The Artist Formerly Known as Hindrocket, Powerline
There is lasting damage to our image because of this report, and we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region, and I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the holy Koran. -- Scott McClellan
I mean, it's appalling, really, that an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm including loss of life. And one would expect as the facts come out of how this story was written, one would in fact expect more than the kind of correction that we've seen so far. -- State Dept. Spokesman Richard Boucher
I think what we make of it is that, despite our review of the situation, we can't find anything to substantiate the allegations that appeared in Newsweek magazine. And we've looked at, I think, something like -- reviewed 25,000 documents, and there's no indication that anything like that happened. other than what I mentioned in the press conference the other day, one last week, where I think more -- now more than one detainee tore pages out of the Koran and put it in the toilet in protest, to stop up the toilet. But we've not found where -- any wrongdoing on the part of U.S. service members. -- Gen William Myers
Just to step back for a second, I think it was Mark Twain who said that something that's not true can speed around the world three or four times in a matter of seconds, while truth is still trying to put their boots on. -- Donald Rumsfeld
Do you know who actually has been confirmed in one report to have said that a Koran was flushed down the toilet? A terrorist prisoner was doing it! A terrorist prisoner ripped the Koran into shreds, put the paper in a toilet and flushed it, and this got reported...It is apparent that the terrorists know who exactly who their friends are and they know how to play them. The media is their Stradivarius. All they have to do is plant rumors, stories, get them published in local newspapers about how evil and mean US soldiers and troops and prison authorities are -- and, bam! The US media will believe it. -- OxyLimbaugh
Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated. -- Dick Cheney
Newsweek Lied. People Died. -- Michelle Malkin
And now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need a bath.
Decline of the West
When I first got whiff of American Idol, I thought -- you know, this is almost it, we've almost reached the nadir of western culture. But I bet if we try, we can go a little lower.
We tried. And low and behold, just when I thought we'd pretty much hit bottom with Dancing With the Stars (all the camp of Strictly Ballroom with none of the irony, and celebrities nobody's ever heard of), along comes the search for a new lead singer for a band nobody cared about before the death of Michael Hutchence, RockStar: INXS.
At first I was going to go with Dancing With the Stars, but it looks like its sheer awfulness might turn the corner into John Waters kitsch. And while I have yet to see RockStar: INXS, it gets extra demerits not only for dancing over a cold corpse, but also for squandering the talents of someone who is genuinely gifted like Dave Navarro, who must have big gambling debts or something to take this gig. Plus we're going to have to hear all that shitty music again.
There are two things the dogs will not tolerate in the house: reality TV or The Factor, so please feel perfectly free to express your opinion and judge the sewage factor of either of these creative endeavors without ever having seen them. And if anyone else's viewing habits are not dictated by a presumptuous dog pack and you think there is something I'm missing that more clearly represents the complete and utter creative and moral bankruptcy of western culture, please feel free to let us know.
Rinse, Repeat: Wal-Mart is Bad For America
Robert Greenwald, director of Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism and Uncovered: The War on Iraq is at it again -- this time with a work-in-progress about Wal-Mart, a company that not only fails to provide health care for its minimum-wage employees, it also routinely directs them to apply for Medicaid, food stamps and Section 8 housing.
He blogged about it on the Huffington Post, and I was quite amused to see two frequently-chanted urban myths about Wal-Mart being hurled at him from the comments:
1. Wal-Mart has to do these things to compete in this business environment. Wrong. Costco manages to compete with Wal-Mart and its employee benefit programs are excellent. Wal-Mart isn't doing this solely to be competitive; they are driving all the profits to the top, where CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. made $23 million in 2004.
2. Wal-Mart is providing poor people with cheap goods they can afford. Wrong again. Wal-Mart has a practice of regularly advertising a few "opening price-point" items it can lure people into the stores with, but in most overall price comparisons they lose.
Robert is looking to make the documentary participatory and is seeking contributions in the form of pictures or videotapes of how Wal-Mart has impacted your community, and how people may have fought back to stop them from coming to a place they're not welcome. They're also looking for donations to finish the film, and if you give $30, they will send you a copy of the DVD as soon as it's available this fall.
I really urge everyone to support this project in any way they can. Somebody really needs to take these corporate creeps on, and their pockets are so deep that none of our brave elected officials or the courageous members of the MSM are ever going to do it.
P.S. Don't tell my mom I wrote this. She full-on LOVES Wal-Mart. It's one of those things we Don't Discuss.
This Week in Dog: Kobe's Beach Encounter
Kobe to giant German Shepherd on beach today: "Oh yeah? Well my mom got an email from Harold Bloom this week, so you can just Fuck Right Off, furball."
Okay he really didn't, Kobe never uses profanity. He just growled. But it's what he meant.
Media Heroes Whores in Action
Well you knew it had to come. The NYT (and others) have once again appointed themselves enablers of the dissembling right, and the dialog over Deep Throat has now devolved into a discussion of whether Mark Felt was "honorable" or not. Over at the Left Coaster, Duckman nails it:
How familiar that all sounds. It wasn't the abuses at Gitmo, it was Newsweek getting it wrong that was the great crime.
It wasn't the hypocrisy of bushco actions towards GLB&T people, it was the outrage that John F Kerry pointed out that Big Time dick cheney's daughter was a lesbian that was the heinous event.
I could go on and on. But just look at this article, think about it, ponder it for a moment. Mark Felt's honor and a buck and a half might get you a cup of Joe at Starbucks.
But that was the discussion in the Times, was he honorable.
Well, let's see. He couldn't go through "channels" as those people were the very criminals in charge, like Mitchell and Grey and assorted other White House toadies.
It's revealing to note that the first quote comes from a Nixon idolator, pat buchanan. He's a snake, opines pat, an expert on snakes, having worked for Nixon, and having to look in the mirror every morning.
But what about Watergate? I mean, who cares if Mr. Felt is "honorable" or not? Does what he did diminish the gross violations of the Constitution of the Nixon White House? The dead and damaged, the broken lives, the broken countries strewn behind Nixon's paranoia and insecurity?
Sounds like a little pre-emptive action to me -- smear Felt good so nobody in BushCo. gets any ideas about Doing The Right Thing.
Go and read the rest of Honor in Deed. It's a first rate rant.
Big Pharma Has Big Problems
The better part of me applauds the high principles of the ACLU, who supported Rush Limbaugh's attempts to keep his medical records closed to prosecutors who are trying to prove he "doctor shopped" 2000 pills from six doctors in four months. Rush argues that the case "threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians." Because, you know, he's all about the right to privacy.
The not-so-high-minded part was cheering like an English soccer hooligan when the Judge laughed his request out of court.
I know it's wrong. I just can't help it.
More Bubble Trouble
Very interesting article over at BOP News about the housing bubble, where Oldman argues that the Fed is doing everything it can to perpetuate it:
How long could this last? Well for political reasons that transcend the Atlantic it would be my guess that it lasts at least another three years. Another three years since whoever takes over the Fed from Greenspan is likely going to have to promise to be even more accommodating to the bubble to sustain economic activity and because to push it into early 2009 will be the requirement to consolidate and seal the Republican hold on power for another Presidential cycle. Look for further tax-cuts, raiding Social Security, and whatever else must be done to keep the bubble going from the politicians....
It will be a more brutal ending than most people can anticipate and it should be allowed to end now before the damage wrought is too great. However for political reasons it will likely be stretched out at least through the 2006 elections and quite probably through the 2008 ones. In three years the ending of this bubble will have incredible destructive financial results, wiping out wealth not just for a few years but potentially up to a decade plus further cascading consequences such as triggering the failure of the dollar. That alas is the price of hubris, but forewarned is forearmed whether you intend to ride this bull or insulate yourself from it.
While nobody has a good crystal ball for these things, comments from the Fed today seem to support the thesis. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the article, it's well worth the read. But I fear that Bushian economics could be leading us all into an incredible financial train wreck.
Who thought it was a good idea to trust the cokehead with the money?
Update: I'm hearing some speculation that the big push to get bankruptcy reform through Congress was because the finance industry knew this bubble was ready to burst and wanted to mitigate the hit they know they are going to take. Makes sense.
Update: Billmon is discussing the bubble conundrum this morning, as is Barbara at Mahablog.
The Heroic Bob Woodward
Alterman:
Bob Woodward, whom I believe to be the best-selling non-fiction author in the United States, and an extremely wealthy man, did not ultimately respond to the Felt family's entreaties to make a joint presentation of the information, because they hoped the revelation will "make at least enough money to pay some bills." Woodward, instead, left them hanging after a few conversations. According to the Washington Post, he "had prepared for Felt's eventual death by writing a short book about a relationship he describes as intense and sometimes troubling. His longtime publisher, Simon & Schuster, is rushing the volume to press." Nice.
Sounds about right.
Book of J Discussion
It's June 1, and as promised, we're starting our discussion of Harold Bloom's Book of J. It's been a delight re-reading the book, and I'm really grateful for those who suggested and encouraged the discussion.
I love Harold Bloom. I was reading a stormy protest he wrote a couple of years ago in response to Stephen King being given the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution." He had also recently forced himself to read the Harry Potter books (" I suffered a great deal in the process") and he saw both as symptomatic of the "dumbing down" of our cultural life:
Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read Harry Potter you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
In adopting the conceit that the first and perhaps principal author of much of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers was a woman, Bloom forces us to throw off the cultural shackles that have entombed these books and challenge our ideas about what we think we know. He is not a lazy thinker, nor does he allow his reader to be one. As he pays tribute to the dramatic mastery of the author, he forces us to invigorate William Blake's notion that religious history is the process of "choosing forms of worship from poetic tales."
So I'll start the discussion off by throwing out a few questions:
1) How do you feel about the case he presents for J being a woman? Is it a convincing and/or useful premise?
2) At one point, Bloom asks "How does one begin to read more severely a writer whose work one has been misreading, necessarily and rather weakly, all one's life? The investment, societal and individual, in the institutionalized misreading of J is extraordinarily comprehensive, since it is divided among Jews, Christians, Muslims, and members of the secular culture." Do you think that is a fair assessment?
3) I would say that Bloom's most controversial thesis is that J was not motivated to write out of piety, and that her Yahweh is arbitrary, vindictive and often irrational, "an imp who behaves sometimes as though he is rebelling against his Jewish mother." Does your reading support that notion, and how do you believe that this character relates to the normative Yahweh as he is worshipped today? (Bloom claims that Yahweh has been "safely transcendentalized" and has become something of a "gaseous vapor.")
4) What aspect of the book took you by surprise? And do you believe, as some do, that it is "heretical?"
Feel free to comment about these or any other aspects of the book that impressed you, and you are also invited to join the discussion no matter how much (or how little) of the book you have read.
I will be leaving the link to this thread on the sidebar so you can join in at any time without having to search for the post.
Many thanks in advance to all who participate.
I Guess Ignorance of the Law Actually is A Defense
I have to say I was really surprised at the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn the conviction of Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice in the Enron investigation. Anderson's defense was that they started shredding documents because they thought there might be an upcoming SEC investigation; the announcement that there was, in fact, going to be an investigation did not come until several weeks later.
According to the NYT:
White-collar cases are not akin to - and are, in fact, often the opposite of - trials involving murder or bank robbery, where everyone usually acknowledges that a crime took place and merely debate the culpability of a particular defendant....That is because a potential fraud or obstruction of justice is only illegal if the defendant acted with the knowledge and intent to commit a crime.
According to the ever-impartial Times, "In truth, it is hard to argue with the law's logic: no one should be locked away in prison as punishment for making a business misjudgment."
Hard to argue? Well, oddly, that judgment was unanimously upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most heavily Republican-loaded Circuit Court in the country to which Pricilla Owen was just confirmed (now with 4 Democratic appointees and 12 Republican):
The jury based their conviction on evidence that senior Andersen employees told coworkers to expect an SEC investigation. See id. at 298. Andersen argues that the correct instruction would indicate that concern about possible future proceedings is not enough, and that it did not know of the SEC investigation when the destruction took place. See id. The Fifth Circuit stated that "ignorance of the law is no defense," and concluded that Congress would have specified if a narrower standard were to apply in obstruction of justice crimes. See id. at 299.
The Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the conviction, rejecting Andersen's arguments and characterizing the firm as a member of Enron's "supporting cast," which fell in the wake of Enron's collapse "[l]ike a falling giant redwood." See id. at 284.
The WaPo speculates that with this decision, the Supreme Court is expressing concern about Sarbanes-Oxley, the 2002 law that made it easier for government to prosecute wrongful document destruction. Well, that's great. Just great.
It's hard to see anything good coming out of it -- most legal analysts agree that although the government could retry the case, it's unlikely given prohibitions against double jeopardy and the tougher standard of proof demanded as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone can explain to me how "ignorance is no defense" not being applicable to white collar crime is anything other than a selective class-based application of the law. It looks like the Enron Pack are going to skate. I guess it truly does pay to have friends in high places.
Wherein TBogg Gives 2008 Presidential Candidate Dick Cheney a Lesson in the Bleeding Fucking Obvious
"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously." - Big Dick Cheney
Go.
Deep Throat Comes Out of the Closet?
W. Mark Felt, former number 2 guy at the FBI, has identified himself as "Deep Throat." Bob Woodward, who has long said he won't reveal Deep Throat's name until after he dies, refuses to confirm.
Felt has long been on a list of potential candidates, but he's never been flashy enough to draw the attention that Pat Buchanan or Rehnquist did. Others have believed that Deep Throat was a composit, and that would mean that Felt was simply one of many.
My feeling is that even if Felt is Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein won't confirm it until he is dead. I've suspected for a while that Woodward has big plans for that event that largely center around Bob Woodward, and he's not about to share the spotlight with anyone else.
When Georgie Lies, the Press Complies
If WMDs are ever found I expect it will be in my sofa, where the dogs have managed to bury just about everything else (I'm pretty sure Jimmy Hoffa is in there somewhere). But the minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials, recently unearthed by the London Times, indicate that BushCo. wasn't interested in my dogs' plans for fine furniture before going to war. According to Rep. John Conyers:
If true, these assertions indicate that not only had our nation secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but that we had gone on to take specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority.
Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002 Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective.
Conyers is taking his case to the people and is seeking 100,000 signatures on a letter he hopes to present to Fearless Leader in person, in which he asks for information on intelligence "being fixed" to present a case for war in Iraq. You can sign it here. And a group called After Downing Street is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups and other political activist groups who are urging Congress to launch a formal investigation into whether BushCo. has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. They are acting as something of a clearing house for information on the effort, and you can find more about them here.
David Sirota has a good bit today recounting the outrage that Washingtonians felt about Bill Clinton's blow job, none of which seems to be in evidence regarding BushCo's blatant lies about Iraq:
If ever there was proof that these people are completely and totally out of touch with the rest of the country, this is it. And it will only get worse - the Washington Post is apparently going to run two "jumbo" stories on the Clinton lies, while continuing to relegate Iraq to the back pages. Because to insulated Beltway elites, lying about a personal sex scandal is more offensive than American troops dying for a pack of lies in Iraq.
The dogs have said that if you write your Congressperson and tell them to put the wood to this one they promise to release Judge Crater.
Universal Health Care -- Brought To You By Exxon-Mobil
A recent article in the NYT announces that a variety of groups has banded together, including the AMA, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, The AFL/CIO and other labor unions, as well as members of Big Pharma to urge federal policymakers to take a "pragmatic approach" and take "incremental steps" to address the health care crisis in the US.
Talk about a deal with the devil.
Over at the Mahablog, Barbara says:
I've long believed that, someday, there'd be a tipping point. Someday, when a big-enough chunk of middle-class Americans began to worry about their own access to health care, then people would listen. We'd be able to get past the noise about waiting lines in Canada and persuade Americans we don't have to put up with this.
But I think others correctly point out that government does not generally respond to public opinion, it acts when Big Business tells it to act. While many would argue that General Motors is suffering because of a complete lack of corporate responsiveness to what consumers want, they think they're being crippled by health care costs. Companies who traditionally pay health care benefits feel they are being hamstrung when they have to compete with the bottom lines generated by monoliths like WalMart who let taxpayers and public social services pick up all their health care expenses.
When BushCo. started banging the drum to privatize social security, my brother-in-law made an interesting observation to the effect that what the program REALLY needed was a big middle man akin to the role played by insurance companies in the health care industry. Basically a huge chunk of every dollar spent on health care in this country is being skimmed by people whose only job is to shuffle paperwork and reject coverage for all but the healthy. And there is absolutely, positively nothing "incremental" that can fix that.
In the end, we'll all have universal health care when GM decides we will. But if policy is being dictated by people who are largely responsible for the problem in the first place, expect the price tag to be enormous and any benefit to the public incidental.
(photo courtesy stock.xchng)
I keep having the same conversation over and over again these days questioning the existence of a real estate bubble, and when -- and if -- it will burst. The short answer is, of course, that I have absolutely no idea. But periodically I read interesting things in the blog world on the subject, and the sage Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture has several articles recently worth reading.
Barry notes that the most dangerous factor in all of this is not that interest rates will rise, so much as people will become unemployed and not be able to service their debt:
It's not the leverage, but the ability to service the debt that causes problems. A potentially negative scenario is the Fed tightens too far, inducing a recession. Something else goes wrong - theoretically, China stops buying our Treasuries, and that forces the Fed to become a buyer of last resort (think Bernanke's printing press). Next thing you know, we have hyperinflation, large-scale unemployment, and a housing market off 50%."
He then goes on to cite statistics which demonstrate that from 2001 to April 2005, an astonishing 43% of all private sector jobs created have been housing related. But after the Fed started raising interest rates in June 2004, real estate-related job creation plummeted 68.2%. The implications are not good:
Barring a sudden rise in organic job creation over the next 6 to 9 months, this cycle will have run its course -- my guess is late 2005/early 2006.
Elsewhere, he compares the present housing market to the dot.com stock speculation of the late 90s. He notes that the stock markets peaked when their valuation equaled 140% of GDP, which is right where the real estate market is now:
He then goes on to quote the work of Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg on the topic:
As David observes, a good rule-of-thumb is "to be wary when anything begins to approach or exceed 140% of GDP." (We assume that includes the New York Yankees' payroll.) He ticks off the various arguments bulls cite as explanation for the great surge in housing and house prices (the latter, incidentally, rose a tidy 11% last year), such as low interest rates, the availability of credit, demographic pressures, a rising tide of immigration -- but remains skeptical.
He points out that "much of the move in real-estate valuation has not been due to income generation, per se, but rather due to loose financial-market conditions and an increasing level of exuberance."
He confesses that he gets "nervous when we see things move parabolically north because no asset class at any time ever failed to mean-revert after such an upside move." And, while acknowledging he has been bearish on housing for a spell now, points out that just because a bubble "hasn't burst doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
Warns David, "bubbles and baths usually go together." And so, we might add, do burst bubbles and tears.
One of the more interesting speculations I heard (and I don't remember where it came from) attributed Bush's big push to privatize Social Security to an attempt to infuse the stock markets with a lot of cash and thus create another bubble to take the place of the housing bubble (okay, Barry, "extended asset class") that will most certainly burst. It certainly makes sense, in a self-sabotaging Bushian economic sort of way.
I'm curious to know what everyone thinks. I realize it won't generate the heated debate that speculation about what's tattooed on Michael Jackson's gonads most certainly will, but since we're all going to be affected by it I'd like to know what plans, if any, you're making for whatever eventuality you foresee.
Danica Patrick Rocks the House at Indy
Danica suggests the real reason why Robby is afraid of losing to a girl.
- Dave at 100 Monkeys Typing (via TBogg)
Update: Robby Gordon sure knows how to back his mouth up with results -- he SUCKED ASS and finished 27th today in the Coca Cola 600. There was not a woman in sight.
Robby Gordon is a Big Fat Cry-Baby, and You Can Tell Him I Said So
If your family doesn't have much overlap between the categories of "cousin" and "in-laws," you might be at a bit of a disadvantage watching today's Indy 500 and Coca-Cola 600. In my family staring at cars as they drive around in circles for hours on end is always welcomed as an activity not usually involving gunfire, although until someone crashes it's only slightly more interesting than watching my Cousin Ronald's gun vault sink slowly through the floorboards of the living room and into the basement.
Anyway, one of the notable events this year at Indy is the 4th-place qualifying spot won by Danica Patrick, only the fourth woman ever to start at Indy. She very nearly finished first save for a slight wobble during practice, which would've given her pole position.
Veteran driver Robby Gordon, however, is not exactly overflowing with good sportsmanship, and thinks that the only reason Patrick qualified so high is because of her unfair weight advantage.
"The lighter the car, the faster it goes," Gordon said. "Do the math. Put her in the car at her weight, then put me or Tony Stewart in the car at 200 pounds and our car is at least 100 pounds heavier."
"I won't race against her until the IRL does something to take that advantage away."
Oh where do we start.
Robby Gordon is a bloated egomaniac of Trumpian proportions who races both Indy and NASCAR, and in four previous years he's pulled the superb publicity stunt each Memorial Day of racing at Indy, then jumping in a helicopter, flying to Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte and racing the Coca-Cola 600.
In almost every race, he stunk up the track:
1997 - Indy 29, Coke 41; 2002 - Indy 8, Coke 16; 2003 Indy 22, Coke 17; 2004 - Indy 29, Coca Cola 20.
This year has been particularly hard. As a co-owner of Robby Gordon Motorsports, he was fined $50,000 and docked 25 championship points, the most severe penalty for violations at Daytona, for an unapproved intake manifold. Then in April, he was fined $5,000 at Martinsville when inspectors found an unapproved deck lid.
As one fan site puts it:
These modifications are the steroids of NASCAR, tempting because of the high stakes and possibilities of improved performance. Let's make sure the winners win because of driving skill, not because of performance enhancements that got past the inspectors.
Gordon hasn't had a win on either circuit this year. As another commentator noted, "Robby Gordon comes to mind as one of the biggest losers so far this season."
So instead of saying "you know what, I should just focus on winning one race rather than screwing up two in an expensive annual publicity stunt," he blames his pull-out on the girl. Classy. Face it, lardo -- they pushed back the start time at Indy this year just so it became virtually impossible for people like you and Tony Stewart to race both. Tony Kanaan, who qualified first at Indy and is the odds-on favorite to win, weighs 145 lbs. Let's see you stop shoveling cheeseburgers into your mouth and stick your face in front of a camera and tell everyone the reason he's kicking your ass is because of his weight.
Some asshole is always screaming that women shouldn't be able to to this or shouldn't be able to do that because we're smaller, lighter, have less upper body strength, blah blah blah. Finally our smaller size works to our advantage, and some new asshole has to come shrieking out of a vast wasteland of bungled fraud and incompetence to excuse his own ineptitude by saying that advantage is unfair. Because, you know, making illegal modifications to your car is just what -- good sportsmanship? Here, Robby. Have some more bacon fat to go with those biscuits and gravy.
Even the faithful aren't buying it:
Weight is simply one tiny factor in the complex speed puzzle that encompasses everything from chassis-engine combination to the direction of the wind. She has a first-rate team, a fast car and phenomenal skill at the wheel.
Weight also is less of a factor at Indy, where a driver is flat on the throttle much of the day, than it would be on a road course, with all its accelerating and hard braking.
Danica Patrick is driving really well. Robby Gordon is a whiny little bitch. And if driver weight is so important, his tellingly porcine visage indicates that the IRL aren't the ones who need to get to work.
Update: With 23 laps to go Danica's in first place. I swear to God, no shit I'm in tears.
Update 2: Finishing Indy in 4th as a rookie. That's fucking awesome. As noted automotive writer John Pearley Huffman says, "An amazing run for Danica Patrick. Epic. She blew a pit stop and knocked off her nose and still challenges for the win. An unbelieavable feat."
Having trouble accessing the new site?
New Digs
Moussaoui Case Stunner
FDL Late Nite: Feingold Plays Rochambeau With Linc...
Thanks For Being Patient
Late Nite FDL: Incomprehensible Demoralization
3 Years of War
Redd on CSPAN: No Prisoners
Nancy Pelosi Should Act First, Criticize Later
Let's Play Strategery

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


ContentYak takes your confidentiality very seriously! Please read and follow the ContentYak Confidentiality Policy.
Confidentiality is important when it comes to crowdsourcing. We want you to have a safe, successful experience on our site.
To ensure your safety, ContentYak requires that all Users of our site agree to follow our Confidentiality Policy. All visitors to ContentYak agree to comply with this Policy.
Failure to adhere to this Policy will lead to immediate account shut down at ContentYak.
Just like any other online, crowdsourced and cloud environment, users of ContentYak should always be careful of their personal information. For your own safety, Users within our system should not share phone numbers, mailing or email addresses, or any other personal information with each other.
ContentYak is not responsible for any contact made or business done outside of the ContentYak platform.
ContentYak has been purpose built to allow for all communications between Clients, Writers and Editors to easily happen at any time inside our online system. Simply log in to your account and send an instant message. Users are always notified immediately of any ContentYak messages waiting in their accounts.
It's simple: if you are being asked online to provide a credit card number or to make any payments other than directly through ContentYak's PayPal fintech, you are being scammed. Don't let this happen to you.
Please immediately report to us at yak@contentyak.com if you are asked to make or receive payment for content from ContentYak outside of the built-in PayPal wallet system that ContentYak uses exclusively.
ContentYak is designed to facilitate easy payment between Clients and Writers. Users will never have a legitimate reason to attempt transactions outside of the ContentYak platform. Just log in to your ContentYak account to access your wallet. Stay safe.
You are wholly and solely responsible for all activity and transactions on your ContentYak account. Do not share your ContentYak login credentials with anyone else.
IMPORTANT: Do not share access login or password details for other sites or systems.
If the Writer or Editor requires access to specific files located on a protected system, please share those files within the ContentYak platform only. If you are asked for passwords or credentials, please report to us immediately at yak@contentyak.com.


Nassau Railroad Company was a streetcar company that ran in Queens and Kings Counties in the State of New York during the 1850s and 1860s. It should not be confused with the Nassau Electric Railroad.
CROSSTOWN: From Hunterspoint Ferry at the foot of West 2nd Street (54th Street)[clarification needed] via the Williamsburgh, Ravenswood, and Astoria Turnpike, (Vernon Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue); Driggs Avenue (double track), Driggs Avenue/Bedford Avenue (single track each), Broadway, Rush Street, Kent Avenue, Washington Avenue, Park & Flushing Avenues (single track on each), Willoughby Street, Joralemon St, Court Street and Atlantic Avenue to South Ferry.
FRANKLIN AVENUE: From Crosstown via Washington Avenue, Montgomery Street, and Franklin to Flatbush Avenue.
The new railroad could never establish whether it actually intended to operate, or whether it was a stalking horse for the Greenpoint and Williamsburgh Railroad, which see. The two railroads promptly solved the route problem, but not before the City of Brooklyn tried to throw a monkey wrench into the whole deal. The Nassau RR could not obtain consents for the Washington Avenue portion between Myrtle and Atlantic Avenues, and - of course - the emphasis shifted from Flatbush Village as a source of revenue to Grand Army Plaza, which was to be the most public portion of Prospect Park, which was then under construction.
VANDERBILT AVENUE: From Washington & Park Avenues via Washington Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue to Grand Army Plaza. This established the Nassau Railroad as the first railroad on Vanderbilt Avenue, although other railroads would gain much more fame for the route than the Nassau Railroad.
The two railroads finally admitted that they had lobbied in Albany for permission to consolidate, and the legislature consented by passing Chapter 576, Laws of 1868, which authorized the consolidation. The consolidation was consummated on July 31, 1868, and the Brooklyn City, Hunterspoint and Prospect Park Railroad was born.
This page was last edited on 9 August 2017, at 20:51 (UTC).


text:
« Frederick William Davis. 150 games for Arsenal and we know so little.
I've got my Arsenal back »
John Devine: a lifetime in football
John Anthony Devine was born in Dublin on 11 November 1958 and played for Arsenal from 1974 to 1983 at a time when the number of Irishmen associated with Arsenal was particularly high and included Liam Brady, David O'Leary and Frank Stapleton. He became a professional at Arsenal in 1976 playing right back, and played his first, first team game on 22 April 1978 taking over from Pat Rice.
By the time of the 1980 cup final he was chosen ahead of Sammy Nelson and was part of the Cup Winners Cup squad for the final. However after an injury John Hollins was brought back in, and unable to retain his earlier top fitness John Devine was transferred on to Norwich in 1983.
He was a non-playing member of the Norwich squad that reached the league cup final in 1985 but after the club were relegated he went to Stoke in November 1985 taking over from Alan Hudson. But after breaking his leg in a game on 18 February 1986 his top flight career was over.
However he did return in 1988 with Start in Norway and was part of their side that won promotion. In 1989 he played for Shamrock Rovers and won the FAI Cup in 1991 with them. He retired from playing in 1991, before spending a year in East Bengal coaching the local team.
Internationally he won 30 caps with Ireland, with his debut for the senior side coming on 26 September 1979 against Czechoslovakia. The last cap was on 17 October 1984 against Norway.
At the end of his playing career John became head coach and later caretaker manager at Shelbourne. After that he was head coach at Spirting fingal from 2008 to 2011 taking the club through two promotions and the 2009 FAI Cup final. He also worked for 10 years for Manchester United's academy at the Irish Academy Director.
Games Goals
1979–80 33 0
I don't have exact details of John's work subsequently but there is an interesting commentary from him on grassroots football in Ireland here: http://www.thecoachdiary.com/john-devine-talks-grassroots/
And John is also the South Dublin Football League coaching director, and he has given interviews on his work with grassroots football there too:
"Following my appointment by the SDFL in 2012, it was important to design an alternative player development programme to the traditional format, whereby U-7s, 8s and 9s play competitive 7 v 7 leagues with promotion/relegation structures on pitch areas and goals which are too big," said Devine.
"From my experience of working as Manchester United's Irish director of coaching for a decade, allied with visits to clubs in Spain, Germany and Belgium, I believed this to be the most appropriate small-sided format game for us."
"The 3 v 3 games increase the number of touches on the ball for the players. There is also a coaching area for the players who are waiting to go into their match, so the kids are fully involved all the time.
"And there are no referees, so the players have to decide quickly between themselves on any issues. They all get two games and one practice session. Within an hour, they've had 70% more touches to master the ball.
"Parents can view the game but they're not giving any input. There is no promotion or relegation, no league tables."
April 20th, 2014 | Category: Arsenal