28 February 2007
A war we can win
Some of you might remember this past summer when a hot topic here on Cicero Jones was the War Against Manliness. Floyd Landis, American Hero, was subjected to vicious attacks from primarily French antagonists, upset that a Frenchman had still not won the Tour de France since the time of Napoleon (when the Emperor himself won it during every year of his reign, despite not actually competing). They accused him of having too much testosterone in his blood, compared to the standard levels found in the modern French male.
My defense of Landis, at the time, seemed to fall on deaf ears. But, to everyone's surprise but my own, it turns out I was right. The charges against Landis remain unsubstantiated. And now, according to Outside magazine, the tests of Landis' A and B samples were conducted by the same lab technicians - a big no no in the world of drug testing, as this gives the technicians the power to validate their own work.
Floyd also received the support of Phil Ligget, the "Voice of the Tour" and, apparently, a very well-respected dude in the cycling world:
Some of you might remember this past summer when a hot topic here on Cicero Jones was the War Against Manliness. Floyd Landis, American Hero, was subjected to vicious attacks from primarily French antagonists, upset that a Frenchman had still not won the Tour de France since the time of Napoleon (when the Emperor himself won it during every year of his reign, despite not actually competing). They accused him of having too much testosterone in his blood, compared to the standard levels found in the modern French male.
My defense of Landis, at the time, seemed to fall on deaf ears. But, to everyone's surprise but my own, it turns out I was right. The charges against Landis remain unsubstantiated. And now, according to Outside magazine, the tests of Landis' A and B samples were conducted by the same lab technicians - a big no no in the world of drug testing, as this gives the technicians the power to validate their own work.
Floyd also received the support of Phil Ligget, the "Voice of the Tour" and, apparently, a very well-respected dude in the cycling world:
"I ran into Floyd and we had a very quiet one-on-one around the dinner table," said Phil Liggett, a sports journalist who covers the Tour de France for Versus (formerly OLN) and CBS Sports. "He's so angry. During the week he announced his defense policies. There have been mistakes made on the testing and I believe he will win his appeal."Also of note is the Floyd Fairness Fund, whose mission is:
- To support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations
- To provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd
- To bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case
Labels: french people, lab technicians gone wild, war against manliness
¶ 8:31 PM 1 comments
27 February 2007
A Coffee Conundrum
by: J-lo
Although Cicero nor I are advocates of Starbucks and the coffee they produce, I felt I should share this piece from another blog that discusses Howard Schultz's, chairman of Starbucks, own personal conundrum. When Schultz began Starbucks back in '87 he had a vision of a coffee shop similar to those found in Italy and meant to broaden social experiences and the feeling of community. Unfortunately, as most of us are aware, that is no longer the case for Starbucks.
Unfortunately for his company, Starbucks is doomed to become a disgraced coffee empire (40,000 stores) that colonizes even those countries where coffee is produced - but then again I could be wrong considering the growing number of Starbucks loyalists. In my opinion though, it is truly a tragedy.
UPDATE (from Cicero): For those who are interested in this, I have some good YouTube viewing. Bryant Simon, a professor of history at Temple University, has spent several years visiting Starbucks all over the world and studying how they draw people back for more and more. You can read more about his work in The Guardian. This is his presentation to the recent Taste3 Conference in San Francisco:
Although Cicero nor I are advocates of Starbucks and the coffee they produce, I felt I should share this piece from another blog that discusses Howard Schultz's, chairman of Starbucks, own personal conundrum. When Schultz began Starbucks back in '87 he had a vision of a coffee shop similar to those found in Italy and meant to broaden social experiences and the feeling of community. Unfortunately, as most of us are aware, that is no longer the case for Starbucks.
In a February 14 internal corporate memo,“The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience,” Schultz laments how the company’s fierce expansion and efficiency measures “have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.”Interesting how a vision to strengthen community and share the experience of coffee with customers has become a parable of the tragedy of the commons. My simple suggestion for poor Mr. Schultz is that he spends an hour in one of his metropolitan stores, "experiences" the coffee, and lastly judges for himself if the environment and the customers are truly "communal". Maybe then he will realize his vision is a failure and his coffee cannot even compare to something offered in Italy.
Unfortunately for his company, Starbucks is doomed to become a disgraced coffee empire (40,000 stores) that colonizes even those countries where coffee is produced - but then again I could be wrong considering the growing number of Starbucks loyalists. In my opinion though, it is truly a tragedy.
UPDATE (from Cicero): For those who are interested in this, I have some good YouTube viewing. Bryant Simon, a professor of history at Temple University, has spent several years visiting Starbucks all over the world and studying how they draw people back for more and more. You can read more about his work in The Guardian. This is his presentation to the recent Taste3 Conference in San Francisco:
Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks
¶ 10:09 AM 4 comments
26 February 2007
Pro portions
How many calories do you think you average per course when you go out to eat a chain restaurant? Everyone knows it is "a lot'" - but what does that really mean? This:
A 2,000-calorie appetizer, a 2,000-calorie main course, another 1,700 calories for dessert - those aren't typos. It's more like par for the course at Ruby Tuesday, On the Border, the Cheesecake Factory and countless other top table-service chain restaurants.The article also contains one of my favorite new phrases in journalism (bolded):
But since those chains make almost zero nutrition information available on menus, their customers don't have a clue they might be getting a whole day's worth of calories in a single dish, or even several days worth in the whole meal.
Uno Chicago Grill's "Pizza Skins." "We start with our famous deep dish crust, add mozzarella and red bliss mashed potatoes, and top it off with crispy bacon, cheddar and sour cream," says the menu. The menu doesn't disclose that this fusion of pizza and potato skins - which is meant to precede a meal of pizza - packs 2,050 calories, 48 grams of saturated fat and 3,140 milligrams of sodium - more than a day's worth.Wow, I don't even know what to say. One thing I would ask is that this be something we keep in America and really don't try to export. Because if I'm abroad someday and encounter an American chain restaurant pushing this dish on the previously unaware culture I am visiting, I will spontaneously combust.
Labels: combustion, fat americans
¶ 9:25 PM 3 comments
“Paper or Plastic, Mr. Gore?”
by J-lo
My recent journey to Whole Foods may have shed some light on that age-old dispute between the Gozdilla and Mothra of the grocery industry, Paper and Plastic. Typically, when at the cash register you expect the timeless question of “Paper or Plastic?” However, it seems Whole Foods - and possibly more supermarkets - are doing away with the paper and only supplying the plastic. But, why? Is plastic, a derivative of petroleum, honestly more sustainable, greener and more granola than paper?
A simple side-by-side comparison and one would anticipate paper the champion of grocery bags (of course I am excluding from this test canvas, which is the true champion of greens). Think for a second about the history of each, the lives of Plastic and Paper. Paper’s dates back to its birth on a monoculture tree plantation, most likely in the Northwest region of the U.S.A or possibly B.C., Canada. Plastic, on the other hand, was born in a factory and created by the virtues of petroleum. As their lives dwindle, Paper typically sees its role reutilized, whereas Plastic finds itself as a decoration of sorts around the neck of a seagull or leatherback turtle.
For years, I have personally chosen Paper as the more earth-friendly option; however, after my Whole Foods experience and recent investigation I have discovered Plastic as the true winner. According to a life-cycle energy analysis conducted by Franklin and Associations, Ltd, Plastic outmaneuvers Paper two to one. In order to achieve the results, Franklin and Associations analyzed total energy used to manufacture a bag, and the amount of pollutants produced. The results of the the analysis stated:
“What would Al Gore do?”
Clearly, there is one simple answer: refuse both paper and plastic and bring along your favorite canvas bag. I'm a canvas-user but I must admit that there are moments when I am on my way home from work and have an itch to pick up some groceries yet never thought to bring along the Canvas. On the other hand, the grocery bag industry could take it upon them self and manufacture biodegradable bags made from starches. Yet once again, we face obstacles that may result in individuals becoming too litter friendly, or witness more energy utilized for the creation of a “biodegradable bag.”
Being sustainable is difficult; however, each of us must attempt to do our part and at a minimum utilize Canvas and save our Plastic and Paper. However if one truly wants to be an eco-warrior the only solution is growing your own veggies and knitting yourself a sustainable hemp bag. In short B.Y.O.B. – bring your own bag, bake your own bread!
[ed. note (Cicero): that's not the fun kind of byob, man]
My recent journey to Whole Foods may have shed some light on that age-old dispute between the Gozdilla and Mothra of the grocery industry, Paper and Plastic. Typically, when at the cash register you expect the timeless question of “Paper or Plastic?” However, it seems Whole Foods - and possibly more supermarkets - are doing away with the paper and only supplying the plastic. But, why? Is plastic, a derivative of petroleum, honestly more sustainable, greener and more granola than paper?
A simple side-by-side comparison and one would anticipate paper the champion of grocery bags (of course I am excluding from this test canvas, which is the true champion of greens). Think for a second about the history of each, the lives of Plastic and Paper. Paper’s dates back to its birth on a monoculture tree plantation, most likely in the Northwest region of the U.S.A or possibly B.C., Canada. Plastic, on the other hand, was born in a factory and created by the virtues of petroleum. As their lives dwindle, Paper typically sees its role reutilized, whereas Plastic finds itself as a decoration of sorts around the neck of a seagull or leatherback turtle.
For years, I have personally chosen Paper as the more earth-friendly option; however, after my Whole Foods experience and recent investigation I have discovered Plastic as the true winner. According to a life-cycle energy analysis conducted by Franklin and Associations, Ltd, Plastic outmaneuvers Paper two to one. In order to achieve the results, Franklin and Associations analyzed total energy used to manufacture a bag, and the amount of pollutants produced. The results of the the analysis stated:
A single paper bag uses the energy equivalent of 550 kJ of wood as feedstock. It also uses 500 kJ of petroleum and 350 kJ of coal for process energy. The total amount of energy used by a single paper bag is 1,680 kJ…Two plastic bags use 990 kJ of natural gas, 240 kJ of petroleum, and 160 kJ of coal. The energy used for two plastic bags is 1,470 kJ. Two plastic bags use 87% the amount of energy used by one paper.Now for the all-important question we must all ask ourselves next time we are at the check out counter of the local grocers:
“What would Al Gore do?”
Clearly, there is one simple answer: refuse both paper and plastic and bring along your favorite canvas bag. I'm a canvas-user but I must admit that there are moments when I am on my way home from work and have an itch to pick up some groceries yet never thought to bring along the Canvas. On the other hand, the grocery bag industry could take it upon them self and manufacture biodegradable bags made from starches. Yet once again, we face obstacles that may result in individuals becoming too litter friendly, or witness more energy utilized for the creation of a “biodegradable bag.”
Being sustainable is difficult; however, each of us must attempt to do our part and at a minimum utilize Canvas and save our Plastic and Paper. However if one truly wants to be an eco-warrior the only solution is growing your own veggies and knitting yourself a sustainable hemp bag. In short B.Y.O.B. – bring your own bag, bake your own bread!
[ed. note (Cicero): that's not the fun kind of byob, man]
Labels: global warming, sustainability
¶ 5:12 PM 0 comments
24 February 2007
Obamania
Barack Obama drew 20,000 people to hear him speak in Austin yesterday. Howard Dean drew 3,000 people in Austin at this point in the '04 campaign and that was considered off the charts. To put it mildly, this guy is doing something right. Oh yeah: it was raining the whole time.
Word:
[photo credit: mr. wright, who says obama wore this hat for only 10 seconds]
Barack Obama drew 20,000 people to hear him speak in Austin yesterday. Howard Dean drew 3,000 people in Austin at this point in the '04 campaign and that was considered off the charts. To put it mildly, this guy is doing something right. Oh yeah: it was raining the whole time.
Word:
Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.How many will he get in Cleveland on Monday?
"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
[photo credit: mr. wright, who says obama wore this hat for only 10 seconds]
Labels: obama
¶ 6:09 PM 0 comments
23 February 2007
Hillary/Obama, 2008, and what it all means
So, what's the deal with the whole David Geffen-slams-Hillary-who-slams-Obama thing? Everyone is weighing in. Some people think Hillary "won" because she got Obama to look a little less like the new Messiah. Some think Obama did because he is showing that his campaign is not afraid to attack the "dirty" elements of the Clintonian past. Others say that the Democrats lost because it just reinforces the whole Democrats in Hollywood meme.
If any of the above, I have to go with Obama being the one to gain something from this - and I definitely don't think it did any damage to the Democrats in general. Let me explain.
My problem in general with the Democratic primary field is that NO ONE is really taking on Clinton head on. I don't get it, because there is a HUGE part of the Democratic electorate that is looking for such a candidate. As I often make clear, I am a very partisan Democrat. I believe the Democratic party is the single best vehicle for changing American society for the better. Hillary has done many good things in the past, both for the party, and for affecting positive social change. However, on the Single Biggest Issue of the day, and what some might call the Only Issue, she is wrong wrong wrong.
She thought she could embrace a new identity once she got into the Senate - Hillary the Hawk. Talk tough on terror, go after Saddam, etc. Well, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. A lot of people screwed up back in 2002 - screwed up very badly, with terrible consequences. Of course, the Disaster in Chief is #1 on this list, and no one else can come close to his level of culpability. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many more names on that list. Lieberman might be #2, but Hillary the Hawk is certainly in the top 10. And, like the two men I just mentioned, she is obstinate in her refusal to admit she screwed up. Which is bad, very bad, and could kill us in the general election (keep in mind the electorate is now approaching 70% anti-war).
My nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs. Mitt Romney. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney is not really identified in voters' minds as a super Pro Iraqi War guy. Yeah he talks the talk, but he doesn't have too much blood on his hands. Hillary does. As 2008 rolls around, and American troops continue to die there, we'll eventually hit the general election matchup. In debate after debate, press release after press release, ad after ad, Iraq will be the central issue. And if we have Hillary in our corner, and they have Romney in theirs, how is the Democratic party going to look? Like the War Party, I guess, with our nominee still refusing to apologize, to admit a mistake. Such a matchup would effectively neutralize the Only Issue. Which is not only bad for the Democrats, but absolutely terrible for the American people.
Turning back to the original focus of this post: thank you Obama! For at least taking some shots at this woman, this enabler of war. I am not so enthusiastic about Obama, but at least he did not back down when her camp demanded he publicly rebuke David Geffen. I really hope the next step is for him to start hitting her harder on the war (and hey, Obama, there's a market for this!). I'm not really sure that Obama is offering much effective leadership on the issue, but I do feel that he knows what's up, and wants us to get the hell out of there. I also think he'd be the most able to devise a sensible, multilateral approach to the situation the would result from an American withdrawal (because, let's be honest, Iraq is in rough rough shape no matter what).
One last point: I don't buy for a second the worries about the Democrats being too Hollywood-friendly. Yes, it certainly mattered in 2000 when we had just had 8 years of Democratic governance and were facing a "folksy" (hah!) "straight-shootin'" (double hah!!) Texan who based his campaign on making the Democrats look disconnected from the American heartland. But that is so so far from the situation we face now, that the Hollywood worries should be left in the past. It is the Republicans who seem totally detached from reality, and the Democrats who just swept into Congressional power on a very real wave of popular discontent. Why the bigwig political analysts can't grasp this, I don't know. But I guess that's why we have the blogs now, right?
So, what's the deal with the whole David Geffen-slams-Hillary-who-slams-Obama thing? Everyone is weighing in. Some people think Hillary "won" because she got Obama to look a little less like the new Messiah. Some think Obama did because he is showing that his campaign is not afraid to attack the "dirty" elements of the Clintonian past. Others say that the Democrats lost because it just reinforces the whole Democrats in Hollywood meme.
If any of the above, I have to go with Obama being the one to gain something from this - and I definitely don't think it did any damage to the Democrats in general. Let me explain.
My problem in general with the Democratic primary field is that NO ONE is really taking on Clinton head on. I don't get it, because there is a HUGE part of the Democratic electorate that is looking for such a candidate. As I often make clear, I am a very partisan Democrat. I believe the Democratic party is the single best vehicle for changing American society for the better. Hillary has done many good things in the past, both for the party, and for affecting positive social change. However, on the Single Biggest Issue of the day, and what some might call the Only Issue, she is wrong wrong wrong.
She thought she could embrace a new identity once she got into the Senate - Hillary the Hawk. Talk tough on terror, go after Saddam, etc. Well, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. A lot of people screwed up back in 2002 - screwed up very badly, with terrible consequences. Of course, the Disaster in Chief is #1 on this list, and no one else can come close to his level of culpability. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many more names on that list. Lieberman might be #2, but Hillary the Hawk is certainly in the top 10. And, like the two men I just mentioned, she is obstinate in her refusal to admit she screwed up. Which is bad, very bad, and could kill us in the general election (keep in mind the electorate is now approaching 70% anti-war).
My nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs. Mitt Romney. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney is not really identified in voters' minds as a super Pro Iraqi War guy. Yeah he talks the talk, but he doesn't have too much blood on his hands. Hillary does. As 2008 rolls around, and American troops continue to die there, we'll eventually hit the general election matchup. In debate after debate, press release after press release, ad after ad, Iraq will be the central issue. And if we have Hillary in our corner, and they have Romney in theirs, how is the Democratic party going to look? Like the War Party, I guess, with our nominee still refusing to apologize, to admit a mistake. Such a matchup would effectively neutralize the Only Issue. Which is not only bad for the Democrats, but absolutely terrible for the American people.
Turning back to the original focus of this post: thank you Obama! For at least taking some shots at this woman, this enabler of war. I am not so enthusiastic about Obama, but at least he did not back down when her camp demanded he publicly rebuke David Geffen. I really hope the next step is for him to start hitting her harder on the war (and hey, Obama, there's a market for this!). I'm not really sure that Obama is offering much effective leadership on the issue, but I do feel that he knows what's up, and wants us to get the hell out of there. I also think he'd be the most able to devise a sensible, multilateral approach to the situation the would result from an American withdrawal (because, let's be honest, Iraq is in rough rough shape no matter what).
One last point: I don't buy for a second the worries about the Democrats being too Hollywood-friendly. Yes, it certainly mattered in 2000 when we had just had 8 years of Democratic governance and were facing a "folksy" (hah!) "straight-shootin'" (double hah!!) Texan who based his campaign on making the Democrats look disconnected from the American heartland. But that is so so far from the situation we face now, that the Hollywood worries should be left in the past. It is the Republicans who seem totally detached from reality, and the Democrats who just swept into Congressional power on a very real wave of popular discontent. Why the bigwig political analysts can't grasp this, I don't know. But I guess that's why we have the blogs now, right?
Labels: clinton, obama, politics
¶ 10:40 AM 0 comments
15 February 2007
Style
Has anyone been paying attention to this Iranian president? You know his name, it's right on the tip of your tongue...yeah that's it: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One thing about this guy - even if you don't like his politics, you gotta admire his style. Seriously, they try and make this guy out to be a bad guy (and, sure, he kinda is) but still, in this media-driven world we live in, it's kinda hard, because he actually looks more "in style" than our own Disaster in Chief, as well as most Euro leaders. I'm not joking about this either. Take a look:
Ok, this guy is giving a speech to the United Nations (!) and he decides to forgo the tie, yet still rock the blazer in a show of respect for the dress code. And should he get done with his speech and have a few hours that might be best killed in a downtown bar, well, he's already wearing the right clothes!
And let's be honest, check out this picture of him chilling with Chavez below. My gut feeling looking at this picture: we should be worried more about Venezuela right now instead of all this Iran garbage:
Astute readers will not the image of Simon Bolivar proudly displayed in the background. Yes, the same Bolivar whom Chavez has named his "revolution" after. Chavez loves to cheaply exploit Bolivar's image, so why not throw the stylish Iranian guy in the picture too - however you can bolster your dictatorship, right?
Anyway, I guess this is an ad hoc foreign policy plea: let's worry more about Chavez, and start talking to the stylish Iranian dude to see if we can't just work something out after all. ¶ 9:59 PM 1 comments
Ok, this guy is giving a speech to the United Nations (!) and he decides to forgo the tie, yet still rock the blazer in a show of respect for the dress code. And should he get done with his speech and have a few hours that might be best killed in a downtown bar, well, he's already wearing the right clothes!
And let's be honest, check out this picture of him chilling with Chavez below. My gut feeling looking at this picture: we should be worried more about Venezuela right now instead of all this Iran garbage:
Astute readers will not the image of Simon Bolivar proudly displayed in the background. Yes, the same Bolivar whom Chavez has named his "revolution" after. Chavez loves to cheaply exploit Bolivar's image, so why not throw the stylish Iranian guy in the picture too - however you can bolster your dictatorship, right?
Anyway, I guess this is an ad hoc foreign policy plea: let's worry more about Chavez, and start talking to the stylish Iranian dude to see if we can't just work something out after all. ¶ 9:59 PM 1 comments
14 February 2007
The Real McCain
You gotta love what the YouTube era is doing for accountability in politics:
¶ 4:58 PM 0 comments
¶ 4:58 PM 0 comments
13 February 2007
John McCain is an idiot
He lost the "straight talk" and maverick reputation a long time ago. Earlier this week, when the Washington Post revealed that McCain was seeking out the same $$$ he had once so stridently opposed with his campaign finance reform legislation, he lost perhaps the last thread of credibility he had. However, where McCain has most greatly failed his country is in the realm of Iraq. As John Madden would say, "now here's a guy who looks lost out there." In the midst of one of the worst blunders in American foreign policy history, McCain has actually out-Bushed Bush! Yes, he was calling for an escalation before Bush had even taken off his flight suit.
So now, Presidential-wannabe McCain makes the following statement about his concerns for Iraq:
Reality check: over 2/3 of Americans are against the war. 70 percent oppose adding more troops.
John McCain, you are an idiot, you have no credibility, and you can count on 2/3 of Americans voting against you and your war. ¶ 10:24 AM 1 comments
So now, Presidential-wannabe McCain makes the following statement about his concerns for Iraq:
"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," the Arizona senator said.Yeah, you read that right. McCain is worried that a series of large, coordinated insurgent attacks will "switch American public opinion" against the war. Guess his presidential campaign is cutting into his time to talk with real Americans, because he doesn't seem to have a clue what they are thinking.
Reality check: over 2/3 of Americans are against the war. 70 percent oppose adding more troops.
John McCain, you are an idiot, you have no credibility, and you can count on 2/3 of Americans voting against you and your war. ¶ 10:24 AM 1 comments
06 February 2007
J-lo Op-ed: Hasta Luego Chacaltaya
J-lo brings us the first in what I hope are a series of op-eds dealing with Global Warming.
While some Americans may be glorifying in the rich powder of Aspen or Vail, certain Bolivians are appreciating the last days of dying giant – Chacaltaya. Situated in the majestic peaks above the sprawling slums of La Paz, scientists and ski aficionados are beginning to consider Chacaltaya as the next victim of global climate change.
Bolivia, unlike its neighboring superstar Chile, is not a country most skiers would consider when planning their next ski trip; however, it is home to the highest ski resort (17,388 ft) in the world. Regrettably, what was the vision of dreamer is becoming a mountain of arid land via rampant glacial melting.
¶ 10:11 AM 0 comments
J-lo brings us the first in what I hope are a series of op-eds dealing with Global Warming.
While some Americans may be glorifying in the rich powder of Aspen or Vail, certain Bolivians are appreciating the last days of dying giant – Chacaltaya. Situated in the majestic peaks above the sprawling slums of La Paz, scientists and ski aficionados are beginning to consider Chacaltaya as the next victim of global climate change.
Bolivia, unlike its neighboring superstar Chile, is not a country most skiers would consider when planning their next ski trip; however, it is home to the highest ski resort (17,388 ft) in the world. Regrettably, what was the vision of dreamer is becoming a mountain of arid land via rampant glacial melting.
Scientists say that glaciers are increasingly receding throughout the Andes, but that Chacaltaya’s melting has been especially quick. More than 80 percent of the glacier has been lost in 20 years, said Jaime Argollo Bautista, director of the Institute of Geological Investigation at the University of San Andrés, in La Paz.Once again, humanity’s relentless war on nature is taking yet another victim that threatens the unique world of Chacaltaya. Though not a skier myself, I feel the decline of such a majestic place where winter sports enthusiasts can sip coca tea and view Lake Titicaca, is a frightening message to us all…we need Al Gore as our next president and begin to revolutionize our way of thought.
“I would give Chacaltaya three more years,” said Mr. Argollo, adding that the relatively small size of the glacier and the abundance of rocks under its ice, which easily absorb heat, have quickened its retreat.
Outrageous claims from Texas
I was shocked this morning to receive an email from a friend containing a link to an outrageous news story: "Texas, Connecticut Battle over Birthplace of Burger." "What is there to battle over?" I thought. Everyone knows that, in addition to being my birthplace (primary claim to fame), New Haven is home to Louis' Lunch, the birthplace of the Hamburger.
I will leave it to fellow blogger (and one of my childhood heroes, as he is CT's top weatherman and frequent predictor of school cancellations) Geoff Fox to give the lowdown on Louis':
I am sure this is all just an attempt to knock down what Geoff Fox points out is a great American landmark, an institution that has held its ground against the tide of Walmartization. The Texans are down, and they're desperately flailing for some sort of positive recognition. Well, they're not gonna find it here.
I call on the Connecticut congressional delegation to step in and preserve the place of Louis' at the center of the hamburger universe. (Yes, I know what will probably happen - all of the CT politicians will jump on board and then at the last minute, Lieberman will defect and claim that it is in the nation's best interest to name Texas as the originator of the burger, in the name of national security).
The more I think about it, maybe the hamburger has something in common with our great President Bush. What could that possibly be? Well, like Bush, the hamburger seems like it wants to pretend it was born in Texas, when really it was born in New Haven.
Oh, by the way, did you hear that Tex Mex cuisine originated in Hartford?
I will leave it to fellow blogger (and one of my childhood heroes, as he is CT's top weatherman and frequent predictor of school cancellations) Geoff Fox to give the lowdown on Louis':
The action at Louis' takes place behind the counter, where burgers are broiled vertically, over an open flame, in three cast iron grills. The grills themselves are ancient - actually dating from the 1890's!You can have onions, cheese and tomato, but no ketchup! No French Fries either. At Louis' it's their way or no way, and that includes toast, not a bun.
There are two reasons Louis' is still around. First, it's the burger, of course. It is unbelievably tasty. Second, and more important, Louis' is an anachronism. In this Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Amazon.com world, Louis' operates without consultants and accountants and p.r. flacks. There aren't rounding errors or spoilage. Each individual burger counts.
Now, New Haven has been around since the 1600s, and by the late 1800s was significantly more developed than Texas. I doubt that, among the dusty, dirty nothingness that was Texas during this time, Texans were in a position to be thinking about making ground beef patties and serving them on bread.
I am sure this is all just an attempt to knock down what Geoff Fox points out is a great American landmark, an institution that has held its ground against the tide of Walmartization. The Texans are down, and they're desperately flailing for some sort of positive recognition. Well, they're not gonna find it here.
I call on the Connecticut congressional delegation to step in and preserve the place of Louis' at the center of the hamburger universe. (Yes, I know what will probably happen - all of the CT politicians will jump on board and then at the last minute, Lieberman will defect and claim that it is in the nation's best interest to name Texas as the originator of the burger, in the name of national security).
The more I think about it, maybe the hamburger has something in common with our great President Bush. What could that possibly be? Well, like Bush, the hamburger seems like it wants to pretend it was born in Texas, when really it was born in New Haven.
Oh, by the way, did you hear that Tex Mex cuisine originated in Hartford?
Labels: burgers
¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments
Cicero Jones RSS Feed / Firefox
I feel that I need to bring this up again:
For those wishing to subscribe to this page via an RSS feed, this is the link:
For those wishing to subscribe to this page via an RSS feed, this is the link:
http://cicerojones.blogspot.com/atom.xml
RSS is, simply put: a way to monitor different websites and other news sources via individual feeds. A "push" source that gives you information when the information is there and fits within parameters you've previously defined, as opposed to a "pull" source ( e.g. you looking through washingtonpost.com for interesting stories).
Since I first created this feed back in 2004, a major revolution has taken place: Firefox. I HIGHLY SUGGEST you download Firefox (click the link) and then refer to this page to learn how to integrate RSS feeds into your Firefox browsing experience.
Just like there is no excuse not to be using Gmail as your primary personal email account, there is no excuse to not be using Firefox as your primary browser. How do you think I find out about all of these articles and stay on top of the news in general? Easy: RSS feeds via Firefox.
¶ 8:34 AM 0 comments RSS is, simply put: a way to monitor different websites and other news sources via individual feeds. A "push" source that gives you information when the information is there and fits within parameters you've previously defined, as opposed to a "pull" source ( e.g. you looking through washingtonpost.com for interesting stories).
Since I first created this feed back in 2004, a major revolution has taken place: Firefox. I HIGHLY SUGGEST you download Firefox (click the link) and then refer to this page to learn how to integrate RSS feeds into your Firefox browsing experience.
Just like there is no excuse not to be using Gmail as your primary personal email account, there is no excuse to not be using Firefox as your primary browser. How do you think I find out about all of these articles and stay on top of the news in general? Easy: RSS feeds via Firefox.
