Now we all know what Stalin did this weekend.

Boy George really did want to hurt him.

In other news, fire is HOT!

File this under "News that isn't really news." A new study shows that minorities fare worse during traffic stops than whites.

Looks like everyone gets pulled over at about the same rate, but that there's a pretty dramatic disparity of experiences after that.

Insert obvious "Justice is blind" comment/joke here.

How to Save Boxing

Stepping away from politics for a second. Bill Simmon's wrote a piece on Boxing, and how the De La Hoya/Mayweather fight may be the last "big fight"...ever. He may be right, its hard for people who grew up with something to imagine it gone, but it does happen. Real Professional Wrestling used to be a big event, as did short-track bicycling races (there was a time when it was bigger than baseball), running (again, there was a time when the whole world was riveted by news about the attempt of the four minute mile), etc, and Boxing may be headed that way. Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is growing at an incredible rate with matches selling our mega arenas in Japan under the Pride banner, and UFC here in the states with a reality show in its 5th season, at least weekly fights on Spike (Pride also has weekly fights on Fox Sports), but perhaps more importantly UFC sponsor products (gear, clothes, supplements, etc) are also selling well. It may be that MMA replaces Boxing, and boxing becomes another niche technique that people in the bigger sport of MMA use to win (think kick-boxing and jiu-jitsu - you can catch various forms of kick-boxing on ESPN Classic which is where boxing is headed).

However, it doesn't have to be that way. While Mr Simmon's gives some ideas on how to bring boxing back, but I have my own list.

1. Limit fights to 6 rounds. This move alone helps with several of boxings problems. Mr Simmons is right, boxing needs loaded PPV. 12 round fights drag on, and on, and on meaning you can't have as many "back-up" fights in case the big ones bust. Watch a UFC PPV and often the under-cards are better than the main event. Because UFC fights are three, five minute rounds (except for championship fights which are five, five minute rounds) you can load up a night of fights with more fights. More fights give the audience more chances to watch a great fight. It's simple math. With boxing, the bouts are so long that you decrease that chance and the audience winds up with the very real chance of paying a lot for nothing. And no one likes that.

Shorter bouts also push the action. This also ups the chance for excitement. There's nothing more boring than the late rounds of a fight where both fighters are tired and beat up. There's no strategy, punches lack zip, and its really a contest on who can endure, rather than who can win. Plus with 12 rounds every fight has several "lost" rounds where fighters are catching their breath. Drop it to six and strategy matters, you can't take a round off, and you have to push the action to win. Boxing should be about skill, not survival.

Shorter bouts also limit damage to the boxers. The late rounds are the most damaging. Your guard is down, your not moving, you can't evade, you just take punches. Everyone loses. Fans get a bad fight, and the fighters get hurt, seriously hurt. Also, taking bouts down to 6, by definition, cuts down on the number of punches a fighter takes during their career.

Bottom line, you should know after 6 rounds who the better fighter is on that day.

2. Three knock-downs and/or standing eight counts and you're done for the night. There just isn't any need to have fighters keep fighting after 3 such events. Just not the fighters night, and other fighter deserves to win. Boxing already has enough decisions (more on this), this rule insures more outright victories and would create a "buzz" of excitement after a fighter has his second knock-down, everyone will know that he can't get a third. He'll fight harder, as will his opponent to get it.

3. No ties. If the fight is tied after 6 rounds, it goes to extra rounds. One round, winner take all. If it's still tied, you do another. Someone has to win.

4. Tournaments. Build the base by getting fighters exposure and giving them a chance to win. Hold them regionally and/or internationally over a period of weeks. Televise the matches on ESPN and create buzz in the public. With a 6 round format someone will sneak through, you'll have greater chances for great fights that get people excited about the next one, etc. No one follows boxing because its held hostage to the promoter system. You can't really get a feel for who's up and coming, who's got it, and who doesn't. Tourneys get around that.

5. Lose some weight classes. Currently there are 17 weight classes from 95-201+, which means some are divided by a whopping 2 pounds. In a sport with such low personality recognition the best thing to do is to consolidate so people get a chance to really know what's going on. There are just too many "champions" for anyone to follow, so no one does. It's not like a league with 17 teams, in boxing each weight class has their own people, ranks, and fights. No casual, or even semi-serious fan can follow all that, much less have the chance to get to know and care about up and comers. It's too much.

6. I actually don't have a problem with the 57 boxing associations. They all rank the same fighters. Yes, fewer (much fewer) would be better, but I don't see it as the main problem. Maybe what boxing needs is one more, one that did the above. That would blow up the status quo, and many of these other associations would go away.

I like boxing. Amazing athletes with amazing skill. One on one, no team, no one to cover your mistakes and no one to lean on if you're having an off day, plus at any second it can turn. A Blow out football game is a blowout, nothing will change that. But boxing, one punch and you can go from dominating to losing. The tension is awesome. But long fights are not only boring, but dangerous. I haven't really been a big fan since I saw the Leavander Johnson/Jesus Chaves fight. Mr Johnson was able to leave the ring under his own power but died later from injuries sustained in the fight. It reminded me of what I don't like about boxing, watching one guy get destroyed, literally. Say what you want about MMA, the fights may be bloody, but they're quick, and no one gets killed. It's fast, exciting, and you can put away someone before they can "recover" to take more damage. Boxing needs all of that, and it can be done relatively simply. MMA is the next step, but boxing doesn't have to become the next Full Contact Karate, airing midnight on ESPN 8, The Ocho.

Kathryn Johnston Update

Back in November I wrote about the death of 92 year old Kathryn Johnston in a "no-knock" raid. The whole event was shady to say the least, and looked like there was something very wrong going on.

Yesterday an Atlanta court agreed. Two officers involved, J.R. Smith and Gregg Junnier plead guilty to various crimes including manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements. A third, Arthur Tesler is charged with charged with violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process, but plans to go to trial.

There is one throw away line in the article that I want to address.

He (Fulton County prosecutor Peter Johnson) said Johnston only fired once through her door and didn't hit any of the officers. That means the officers who were wounded likely were hit by their own colleagues, he said.

What this means is that this "no-knock" method, a method used to protect police, actually lead to more harm as the chaos and excitement of the moment added bullets to the air. Besides Ms Johnston, how much more injury could have been prevented by an old fashioned investigation and warrant issue? The general rule to a tense situation is to try to diffuse it, not jack things up. A calmer tact may not be as cool, but it is more effective.

Bottom line, nobody "won" today, but hopefully this will slow down the rapid rise of no-knock entries, put the police under greater scrutiny, and it does show that if citizens put pressure on the system, they still control it.

All In All, You're Just Another Brick In The Wall...

Too obvious for the Iraq Wall Lead in?

Anyway, looks like the US Military is going to build a wall in Baghdad to try to quell the sectarian violence.

Believe it or not, the pro's and con's of such a wall are not the topic of this post. Seriously, you can believe it, or not believe it, it makes not one speck of difference to me. Try it, you'll see...see, I don't care.

What does concern me about the wall is that even if you think that the wall is the single best idea going in Iraq right now, you have to wonder why the US Military is building it. Strategically, wall's are always controversial, which is a great reason to push this to the Iraqi Military. It removes most of the big controversy and "imperial" nature, and makes them responsible for it. Their city, their wall. Let them answer to the citizens, let the build it, let them take responsibility for it. Let them deal with the controversy, we have enough of an image problem as it is. This only exasperates our issues with the Iraqi people. We should get out of the way, or at least the spotlight on this particular issue.

Practically, surely this is something the Iraqi Military is capable of doing successfully. If the Iraqi Military cannot even be trusted to build a wall, what does that really say for how far out they are in terms of actually keeping the peace and defending the country? Couldn't this be viewed as some sort of benchmark, or even a learning experience for them? Not only that, but surely US forces can be put to better use that building a wall? Isn't that the point of the surge, to get more troops out in the field looking for bad guys and protecting each other?

Again, wall or no wall, that's not the point. The bigger question is why is the US building it and not Iraq?

Wiccan Celebration Party. BYOI.

(That's Bring Your Own Incense for the Wiccanly challenged).

Anyway, the Department of Veteran's Affairs has officially OKed the Wiccan symbol, or Pentacle, for use on the government issued headstones of fallen soldiers.

OUTSTANDING!

Long time readers (Hi Ma) know that the H-Blog has been all over this issue, here and here, and it's nice to get a "win."

Penny For Your Skills

Another brilliant plan by our education leaders, another finger in the dike of failing government education. We can't get enough math and science teachers so we'll pay $10,000 towards their tuition if they commit to an under payed and over regulated life of public school teaching. Keep your kids home for a few days so they don't get injured in the impending stampede.

Let's face it, math and science degrees are harder pursuits for most people and therefore we don't churn out as many of them every year as we need. Since there is a scarcity of graduates, there is an increased demand for their services. And this should lead to higher value placed on them. But in the great wisdom of the Marxists who run teacher's unions, ALL teachers have the same value. Well, let's get up to speed because even the Communists learned that some people are more equal than others. It is laughable that gym teachers make as much as History teachers. Or that History teachers make as much as Physics teachers. This "solution" is poorly conceived and inadequate. Like central planning in general; it will fail.

It is wrong that competent teachers make as much as incompetent ones. It is wrong that students who master the more challenging curriculum of math and science get paid the same as students who organize dodge ball games. It is a shame that no one has wrestled the important job of education away from the incompetent bureaucrats who have been failing at it for half a century.

Let the "x" word sweepstakes begin

Apparently reducing adults to the level of having to say "the n-word" when referring to any discussion about "nigger" isn't quite enough. Looks like now the new way to have proper recognition as an oppressed minority is to have your own word that's so bad you can't say it. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is calling for everyone to stop saying "wetback" (which, honestly I didn't think people really said that much) and replace it with "the w-word." Seems "wetback" is disrespectful (well...duh) but the much more juvenile "the w-word" is somehow more respectful. One, making adults say "w-word" is really just disrespectful to adults. Two, I don't want to burst Mr Navarrette's bubble, but "w-word" is just code for "wetback." Nothings really changed. It's like when people think saying "jeeze" when angry is OK, but "Jesus" isn't. It's all code for the same meaning, and bad is bad. Changing the code doesn't change the meanings.

But it looks like the trend will be for minorities to have their own "banned" words. The Irish can have the "d word," Native Americans the "r word" and the Chinese the "y word." But what happens when words start to overlap? I'm sure the Italians don't like "wop," but it looks like the Hispanics have dibbed the "w word." The Italians can't go with the "wo word" because it looks like they're stuttering, which is surely the "s word" for stutterers. Maybe they go with the "Italian w word" but that feels cumbersome. I guess we need to hold some sort of summit to work all this out, but if you work in an office you know that meetings surely rate the "m word." Maybe that's the fix. Everything we find offensive we just abbreviate it down to the "x word." Everyone can feel important and everyone else can feel stupid (s word?).

Look, I get that Mr Navarrette probably knows that his idea is s word, but that putting it out there gets people talking about him, and in the age of Reality TV, any talk is good talk (better to be known as a moron than not be known at all). However the problem is that some "i word" will not get this and take him seriously. Then a bad idea takes root, and it becomes all of our problem.

Sour Nothings

Been reading a lot recently from this fella, an anarcho-capitalist. Can't say I'm one. But at the very least anarcho-capitalism's core principle makes the work of justifying government's role in any interaction as hard as it, by all rights, should be.

I generally take his line this week that what could have prevented Cho's mass murder at Virginia Tech is unimaginable. I'd guess, unsatisfyingly, whether at Virginia Tech or in almost any other workplace in the country, it's "nothing":

*not more restrictive gun laws, a political non-starter for reasons not the least of which is that guns are what people across the country want and, therefore, will be sold legally or illegally;

*not less restrictive gun laws, inconceivable as they are to begin with to both pro-and anti-gun legislators and activists who must ever-so-slightly obstruct gun ownership to "just do something" about violence that most people--least of all university students and teachers--would never think until Monday of having to arm themselves against;

*not more psychiatry, at least as a crystal ball that lets us look into the future at which of the thousands of enraged and delusional young men among us will emerge as a unconscionable shitbag;

*not, deserved though it may have been had the two students he harassed had pressed charges, his expulsion from Virginia Tech, in essence a city within the city of Blacksburg that, unlike the high schools from which most of these young people came, cannot simply be "locked down";

*and not more "outreach" (and what an icy, but appropriately unfriendly word that is for the fear-driven, clinically condescending contact we too often mistake as compassion) from Cho's classmates and teachers, whom he rejected and by whom he was rejected.

Cho had in him what's in all of us: a choice. Who among us doesn't know it was the wrong one? There's no telling. And nothing that we in a free country can do about it.

Non Smoking Cigar Bars? Only in America

CO, in the midst of an anti-smoking fury, will now make it illegal to smoke in cigar bars. See there are three kinds of poor ideas, misguided, dumb, and radically stupid. This ban falls into the "radically stupid" category. While I've written before on smoking bans (one, two, three), I couldn't let this pass.

"Cigar Bar" folks, the name says it all. If you don't want to be around smokers, it's hard to imagine a better warning label than "This is a cigar bar." I also have a hard time imagining that non-smokers (like me) feel like their favorite cigar bar is being ruined by the smokers.

Yes, the article says that some bars will try to abuse the exemption. But look, if you're doing $50,000 in tobacco revenue, or even 5% of your total revenue, no matter how you slice it, your customers are smokers. It's really hard to imagine that such places are running off their non smoking customers. Either they don't have many, or the non-smokers don't care (more on this).

Then there's McLieberman's comment to another entry.

The right to smoke is one thing, there is however, a legitimate case to made for protecting employees. It is one thing to socially avoid establishes that allowed smoking but without a smoking ban, barteneders and waitresses will be in unhealthy environments in order to make a living.

This is a very typical reason for the ban, its just not a good one. First, no one is forcing anyone to work in a smoking establishment. You could say that in a high unemployment environment, people will choose jobs that are physically damaging because they have to eat. One, that's just not the case today, nor really, ever. Second, if you close cigar bars, your taking jobs out of the market. Just no way to argue against that, and how does that help. But here's the thing. This well intentioned argument overlooks one simple question, "What if the employee doesn't care?" Or for that matter, what if the non-smoking customers don't care? Everyone in the country (except for Mr Malone) knows that smoking is harmful, yet there are millions of smokers and some of them even have non-smoking friends. They've all made a choice. Why take that choice away from employees and customers? An employee/friend/customer may not care, may not believe, or may be aware enough to know that if the damage of actual smoking can be reversed after a year of quitting, then surely the damages of second hand smoke can be reversed too. Speaking of, the dangers of second hand smoking are hardly proven, so why eliminate jobs that people want just because you happen to be worried? Why mess with the market? Why should your whim matter that much? If enough people are worried about working in a cigar bar, then the cost of labor will have to go up until it reaches a point where people will take the job. Its a self-correcting mechanism. Honestly, if McLieberman really believes his argument he should be looking to ban smoking period. He should be worried about spouses, children and friends of the smoker.

Look, I think smoking is a nasty habit. I think it will greatly increase your chances of not reaching your natural age. I think smokers are pawns to a very well thought out advertising campaign that makes it seem rebellious to do exactly what billion dollar multi-national corporations want you to do. That's just genius. But I also like it because its the closest thing to an "I'm a moron" sign that I can get people to wear. In any group, scan the room, pick out the smokers, and you'll find your morons. It saves loads of time.

However, smoking is legal and smokers are legal. The anti-smoking movement is slowly making a legal product illegal without ever tackling the issue head on. The tactic is underhanded and dangerous. Just because you may not be a smoker, doesn't mean that you can or should look the other way.

By the way, rented "Thank You for Smoking." Great movie. Also a great book.

Ladies, Gentlemans: My Turn Offs

Tattoos spit in the wind of human nature, which blows, and from where next, who knows.

Fasting denies what little about us is a sure thing: Our need to feed.

Golf Clap for Salazar

Ken Salazar (D-CO) made a nice little move recusing himself from a panel that was looking into the dismissal of New Mexico's Federal Prosecutor David Iglesias (why we're involved in the goings on of foreign nations is beyond me, seems like the focus should be on the American prosecutor scandal. Sheesh.).

Anyway, Sen Salazar in his former capacity as CO AG worked with Mr Iglesias so the good Sen felt that the best thing to do was to remove any appearance of impropriety. Nice move. While I'm sure Sen Salazar could remain objective, he understood that appearances do matter, and that people must have faith that the system is fair and unbiased.

Not a huge deal in any sense, but I like his move here. I would like to see more action like this from our leaders (I'm looking at you Antonin).

France Deserves Segolene

I always love the story about the parent who, upon finding his kid smoking, demands that he smoke an entire pack of cigarettes as punishment. "You think that's what you want, huh? Well, let's see if that's so." The idea is Biblical. The Israelites wanted a king. God said, "You don't want a king." The Israelites said, "No seriously, give us a king." God said, "Ok, best of luck with your king." And guess what...things didn't go so well for the pro-king crowd. As long as the consequences aren't deadly, it is usually best to let someone learn that a choice is bad by allowing them to experience the consequences.

So, we move to France. France is a country in severe decline. Their economy has been stagnant for years. Their tight, left-wing labor markets have already resulted in 3 major riots in as many years and there are signs of more to come. Without their UN veto they would have no influence on the international stage. They are just about irrelevant. And still they demand a king (or in this case a queen). The best thing for France in the long run will be to elect Segolene and allow her to speed up the death of "modern" France. The inevitable failure that will result from her defunct ideas will almost certainly turn enough people away in disgust that a rebirth must follow.

Swollow the bitter pill now to kill the disease in the future. Easy for me to say...I won't have to live with her silly socialism.

Viva Le France. Viva Le Segolene. Viva Le Change...eventually.

Run RNC

The RNC and the White House want it both ways on the e-mail issue. Law states that staffers doing political work cannot use their White House email, which is why they all have parallel RNC emails (and also why every Congressman has an office just off the Hill to do political/fund-raising work). Hence, if you're doing the work of the people (all of them, not just Republicans) then you use the White House address, if its political, or personal use something different. Everyone knows this, its the law. Using the WH address gives you protections, but is also more public, and you have to obey the law. Using another address surrenders protections, but is more private, and you have to obey the law. Assuming everyone obeyed the law, RNC emails are just another private account independent of the WH. Why should the WH care? Clearly they weren't under WH jurisdiction, or they would have had a WH address. So why then is the White House insisting on having all relevant RNC email's reviewed by WH lawyers before Congress gets them? The way I understand it, the RNC is a private organization with open membership. Clearly some members of the RNC work for the WH, just as some members of AAA work for the WH. However, the way I remember my high school civics, Congress and the White House are equal. So why, in an investigation of a NGO, should the White House get preferred treatment? Unless, of course, WH staffers and RNC staffers were co-mingling their jobs. Maybe giving the RNC inside information or extra access to the WH, who knows? Just speculation, but my bet is that the 5 million "lost" emails aren't all related to Gonzo's woe's. More likely, there are/were many, many embarrassing and potentially illegal emails among and besides the AG references.

But in a legal investigation, the WH can't jump in front of a subpoena just because it may be embarrassed by its own actions. Equal branches boys and girls.

I Like Bono

Let me just say that I completely believe that Bono's heart is in the right place. The guy is sincere and willing to do some dirty work to accomplish something he believes in. For that, Bono deserves respect. It's just too bad that he's wrong.

Nothing is as well established as the fact that hand outs accomplish very little. Free money has been poring into Africa for decades and the result? Well, poor Bono has to be dragged away from his song writing to fix the problems all over again. It is amazing how long people will stick with a failed plan. In this case, I think the reasons are pretty clear. People give because it makes them feel better, not because they are accomplishing anything. You can write your check and then pat yourself on the back...mission accomplished. I don't mean to denigrate the givers. Giving money to others is a wonderful discipline to practice. But, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make efforts to make sure the money is used effectively. I'm not convinced throwing $1,000.00 out of your car as you drive down the street is as beneficial as, say using that money to help someone get an education. It's not the money that solves a problem, it's the USE of the money.

The way out for Africa is very simple. Increase economic activity by encouraging free enterprise and reducing trade barriers...that's right, globalization. Globalization has lead millions out of poverty in Asia despite what the confused anti-Globalization crowd says. Africa deserves the same benefits as other developing nations who are plugged into the world markets. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I do not question Bono's heart, but I do question his head. Seeking more money for nothing is wrong.

Yes, Johnny, There Are Two Americas

In one you can call Jews "diamond-merchants", whites "interlopers", and the central park jogger a "whore" and run for president. In the other, calling basketball players "nappy headed ho's" in an obvious (though pathetic) comedic setting gets you run out of town. It's getting pretty hard for blacks to make the argument that they have everything stacked against them when they get to wear the target jersey in practice that guarantees "no contact allowed". Or maybe they are still in a disadvantaged position because this condescending, kid glove handling by the left is the true source of modern black oppression.

I got my degree from Jeb U.

Fun story about FL State Legislators forcing UF to rename its Education School the "Jeb Bush College of Education."

It appears that this move is in retaliation to UF refusing (and by "refusing" I mean Jeb lost the vote 38-28) to grant Jeb an Honorary PhD (but he shouldn't worry too much, he has honorary degrees from both St. Pete College (formerly St. Pete Jr. College) and Polk Community College). Anyway, I don't really think anyone cares about honorary degrees, or who gets them. Not getting one is akin to not getting the cardboard crown at Burger King. But, politics being what it is some people do care, and Jeb lost the election fair and square.

But the NeoGOP has no patience for voting (especially when they lose) so the State Legislature quickly stepped in. Voting 13-0 they forced the above change. According to the Bills sponsor, Rep. David Rivera (R-Miami),

Whether you agree with him or disagree with him on the issue of education, he certainly pushed the debate and pushed the envelope on the issue.

And,

This amendment may demonstrate to some folks around the state and around the country that the office of governor of Florida is a very prestigious and honorable office and certainly deserving of an honorary degree, absolutely, but even more so the naming of an important college.

Yes, that's the point of all this. To establish the trend that every Governor of FL gets something named after them. Because being governor of one of the largest and most politically important states just isn't enough. The job needs some pizazz! Poor, neglected FL Governors, no prestige or honor in that lowly title.

I wonder, being the cynical skeptic that I am, if the real reason came when Rivera revealed that "lawmakers came up with the idea as an answer to the Faculty Senate's 38-28 vote last month against awarding Bush an honorary degree." So it was either about the prestige of the office Governor or a big "Suck on that UF!" You decide.

This is why the NeoGOP is losing ground. One, this new found love affair with Executive Branches. Again for those new to the blog, Congress and the Executive branches, even at the state level, should be somewhat antagonistic. By rushing to the "aid" of the Governor, the Legislature only shows its deterrence to the Gov. In an ideal world, they don't care enough about the issue to take it up. Kissing the Gov's toes only lessens your position.

Two, there's no real appreciation of the will of the people. Jeb lost a vote and I'm willing to bet didn't lose much sleep over the whole thing. However, the NeoGOP can't stand to be insulted, no matter how stupid the slight. And if they don't like what the people want to do the playbook reads.

1. Lie.
2. Deny.
3. Cover-up
4. Cloud the issue.
5. Take away the right of the people to decide.
6. Do it anyway.
7. The highest level of Government Power trumps the will of the people stupid.

So when Jeb loses a minor and silly vote, rather than just leave it at that, or even respect the will of those with the voting power, the State steps in. Again, where's the notion of "small government?"

However, big congrats to Jeb. According to his spokeswoman Patricia Levesque

While Gov. Bush appreciates the gesture, he believes public service is an honor in and of itself and naming a building, road or program after an elected official will diminish that service," Levesque wrote in an e-mail. "Additionally, the most appropriate time to name something after an elected official is after their passing."

Good for Jeb. I wonder if he'll veto it? My bet is yes, but this will pass with a veto proof margin. Everybody wins...almost.

Put the Shock Back In My Jock

Don Imus was forced to apologize for an "insensitive" remark. Don Imus' job is to make "insensitive" remarks. Let me just say I am not a fan. He and Stern are voices for people who want nothing more than to be back in the safe and simple world if middle school where a well-timed fart joke could make you a king. That being said, his comment about the Rutgers basketball team, regardless of how much truth it contained, is exactly what he is paid for. Belittling individuals and groups will always attract a crowd and often a lucrative radio contract. I understand that we have created some protected classes in today's society who get special treatment. When group A whines they get ignored, when group B whines the offender is shipped off to the Gulag for the reprogramming of sensitivity training. If you think you're justified making a living offending sensitivities then do with it some honor...be an equal opportunity offender. When you cow tow to the sacred cows of "progressive" America, you aren't just a boorish lout anymore, you're also a sell out.

Imus, you are a wuss.

This Week on the Psychic Hotline

After completely blowing last year's hurricane predictions the undaunted weather community is struggling back up from the canvas. Another "very active" summer lies ahead of us we are told. And you know what? They might just be right this time. There are only three possible outcomes of any hurricane season: above average, below average and average. The smart move is to pick one answer and stick with it securing a 33% chance of being right. If you keep making different predictions you might never be right. And that could possibly lead to you being ignored! So thank you weather community for playing your hand correctly and thank you media for reporting nothing as if it were something, now we all have an important topic to discuss on the elevator.

Go Going...

On vacation. It's all I ever wanted. Hush my darlings, don't you cry.

Be back Monday.