Ma perché sul virus bisogna essere tutti massimalisti?
1. Bocelli non sa di nessuno che è stato ricoverato per il COVID-19. Plausibilissimo.
2. Fedez conosce uno che ha subito il trapianto dei polmoni per il COVID-19. Plausibilissimo
3. Il virus è ancora in giro e infetta più che può. Vero.
4. Il numero di morti è diminuito. Plausibilissimo.
5. Alcune terapie sono state sbagliate. Fra queste l’uso di ossigeno in quantità inappropriate. Plausibilissimo.
6. Le terapie sono migliorate molto negli ultimi sette mesi. Plausibilissimo.
7. Meglio portare la mascherina in presenza di altri in luoghi chiusi. Ovvio.
8. La mascherina da sola non protegge più di tanto. Vero.
9. Tenere chiusi in casa milioni di persone giovani e sane per un virus che colpisce duramente soprattutto i malati e gli anziani è una esperienza difficilmente ripetibile a distanza di mesi, perché il rischio è la povertà e la fame. Plausibilissimo.
10. Fare finta di niente è molto stupido. Vero.
11. Pensare che sia una cospirazione di Bill Gates è una stronzata. Ovvio.
12. Fidarsi ciecamente degli esperti è da idioti. Ovvio.
13. Dire che gli esperti non capiscono niente è da idioti. Ovvio.Alla fine, l’unica cosa seria è ammettere che di questo virus ne sappiamo troppo poco per avere più che poche certezze, e l’unica cosa da fare è restare cauti e curiosi.
E for the Bank of England Death Mask – one of the hidden details of Aldgate. It says “душа” on the side (Slavic for “soul”) – if anybody knows what this is about, do let me know!
F for food cooking – aka Extemporaneous Brit-American-Latin-Indian Soon-to-Expire-Items Cuisine. Best so far: Courgette Pie with Rest Meats and St Agur. Most adventurous: Cabbage-based Sweet Cake. You can see the results at instagram.com/omnologos (without the Facebook / Twitter political rants, promise!).
G for Google MyMaps – much unknown app where you can mark the places you’d like to visit, and then see them on Google Maps as you walk/drive by. Got thousands of them all over the planet. If you ever go anywhere, ask me for a list.
H for be helpful – reach out to people. Some of them live totally alone, and don’t know how wrong it is.
I for feeling isolated – looking at Skype’s mocking screen at the beginning of a meeting… “Looks like you’re the only one on the call”…yeah, right!!
J for Jazz – now 90% of my life since Junior (aka Lorenzo) is a professional double bass player at not-even 18. And I can’t tell a trumpet from a saxophone…
K for 48K Sinclair ZX Spectrum – the 1983 home computer (now connected to a TV, again!). You don’t know what computer memory is if you haven’t tried using just 49,152 bytes (48Kbytes) of it (p.s. yes I had the ZX81 before that…)
L for Lines of empty desks in the office. What if nobody actually exist and office life be an episode of Block Mirror?
M for Mentoring- everybody should give it a try – it is a two-way learning experience. This being 2020, the first suggestion to my new mentee has been…a recipe (Clafoutiscake –try that one too!)
N for New desk – after a series of trials and errors I am now moving to a new “desk” every day – kitchen, (sunny) garden, home library, sitting room, even the office. Change of scenery, no RSI, a fresh start. p.s.: working in the sunshine makes you brindle.
O for organise your knowledge – without a good wiki, team knowledge is an inefficient religious mystery.
P for D O N’ T P A N I C – in large friendly letters. Never worry about what you can’t change. I said, never!
Q for Quiz – I recently designed my first quiz, for English friends. All about Italy. With friendly references to four world cups. So friendly.
R for Reggio Calabria where I come from and you can see these extremely rare (and non-derivative!) Greek bronze originals – a tad subdued compared to some indigenous specimen, of course. p.s. it’s at the tip of the boot of Italy
S for the Indian Sitar – another instrument played by the above-mentioned Junior. Too many strings, too many fingers…I am learning to play the Tanpura instead. Four strings, two fingers (and only one string and one finger at any one time!).
T for Talking as little as possible – please! – It might not be their first or last meeting of the day. Don’t say anything that is not absolutely needed to be said!
U for finding your Unique Selling Proposition – a lifelong struggle. What can you do that millions could not do even if they had your knowledge and expertise, or more?
V for an eulogy to the Smart Virus – the one(s) that use our cells for replicating but do not make us feel bad, breathless or dead. My vote for Coronavirus to get smart!!
W for Wear the mask – beach towns regularly impose a T-shirt (in town) and they have no problems with speedos (on the beach). Put on that d**n piece of cloth!! It’s not an instrument of tyranny!!
X for Ibex House– it’s in Minories, minutes from the office. Highly likely the Nazi HQ if they would have won the Battle of England. (aka “The Man in the High Aldgate”)
Y for the Y underground junction under the large bus station in Aldgate – and the reason why there are no buildings there. If you would like a tour of the Aldgate / Tower Hill / Whitechapel areas, just ask – they are on AirBnB too!
Z for Juventus FC’s zebra toy – my other faithful on-screen companion. And the plastic dinosaurs – a success when children stop a meeting. And the “hawk” Carnival mask – causes stomach cramps and incontrollable laughter in all viewers, don’t know why!!
I’m unsure how many understand that the impeachment hearings could spectacularly backfire on the Democrats, so close to 2020. Nothingmueller has been forgotten already despite magniloquent proclamations and the promise of deeply damaging revelations against Trump, something that never happened.
With Biden a collection of liabilities and Hillary idiotically toying with another loss, the field is now a race about who could be more of a socialist, Bernie or Warren. Trouble is, the number of previous Socialist presidents is zero, and it’s doubtful that the people who elected Trump in 2016 will all of a sudden favorably look at the shining path of Karl Marx.
In other words Schiff’s Hearsay Circus ironically smacks of a total surrender to Trump, whose policies are not even debated, let alone criticized.
He can bank on a strong economy, fantastically good employment figures, new pinnacles in Wall St, and the sense that the USA are very well feared the world over – even China having to negotiate where previously they could just steal American IP, unpunished.
Plus of course not a new war in sight. Ford aside, probably one has to go back to Coolidge to find a President not keen on warmongering.
Lo EU Referendum Act 2015 (che stabilì il referendum) fu approvato in Parlamento con 544 voti in favore e 53 contrari (91% vs 9%) – tutti i partiti erano a favore, tranne SNP (Parlamento eletto nel 2015).
Tutti i partiti tranne SNP hanno detto di sì alla domanda del referendum con due sole possibili risposte, alla richiesta di farlo entro il 2017 e al fatto che i cittadini UE in UK e i cittadini UK in UE non avrebbero avuto voce in capitolo.
Hanno anche detto sì alle regole stabilite dalla Electoral Commission, e al non allargare il voto ai sedicenni.Lo EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (che fece partire l’Art. 50 e il processo di uscita) fu approvato in Parlamento con 498 voti a favore e 114 contrari (81% vs 19%) (Parlamento eletto nel 2017).
D’altronde quelli erano in numeri di coloro che si sono fatti eleggere in Parlamento per implementare la Brexit. Sono insomma andati di fronte agli elettori promettendo, promettendo e promettendo che l’uscita dalla UE sarebbe successa.
Adesso non esistono maggioranze del genere in favore del Deal che garantirebbe l’uscita. Si parla di un secondo referendum – qualcosa che non è stata prevista nel primo Act, non è stata proposta che dai Lib Dems e Greens nella campagna elettorale del 2017 e non è stata inserita nel secondo Act.
Questo vuol dire che tra i 50 e 100 parlamentari che hanno votato per entrambi gli Act sono dei bugiardi matricolati.
Perché altrimenti chiedere agli elettori di esprimere un parere non vincolante (il primo Act), approvare poi quanto deciso dagli elettori con un voto vincolante (il secondo Act) e ritrovarsi adesso a non voler fare il prossimo passo?
Non fare una domanda con due possibili risposte se una delle risposte è per te intollerabile.
Non parlare di democrazia se fai una domanda al popolo, accetti per iscritto la risposta dopo aver promesso di accettarla, e due anni dopo fai di tutto perché accada il contrario.
La relazione fra UK e le comunità europee è problematica da subito – non essendo il Regno invitato neanche alla firma del Trattato di Roma nel 1957
Nel 1963 e 1967 De Gaulle mette il veto all’ingresso UK nelle comunità europee
Finalmente De Gaulle va in pensione e UK entra nella CEE nel 1972
Subito pianto e stridore di denti, e referendum nel 1975 per confermare la decisione di tre anni prima IMPORTANTE: tale referendum è il primo nazionale mai effettuato in UK, e viene organizzato perché promesso dai Laburisti nella campagna elettorale dell’ottobre 1974, da loro vinta
Il referendum non placa le polemiche
Se Labour avessero vinto nel 1983, UK fuori dalla CEE (senza referendum)
Invece c’è la Signora di Ferro, e nonostante i movimenti di borsetta non cambia niente
1992, Venerdì nero, sterlina a picco in uscita dal Serpente Monetario europeo
1993, Trattato di Maastricht: il governo Tory di John Major è dilaniato dalle polemiche, nasce il partito poi noto come UKIP e che esiste solo per uscire dalle comunità europee
Dopo gli anni di Blair (che vorrebbe entrare nell’Euro ma nonostante le maggioranze bulgare in parlamento, non ce la fa o non ce la vuole fare), i Tory riprendono il potere nel 2010 e rinnegano la promessa di un referendum sul Trattato di Lisbona
Nel frattempo UKIP sale nei risultati, e nel 2004 è terza nelle elezioni europee. Poi seconda nel 2009 e prima nel 2014, roba mai vista dove avevano sempre vinto Tory o Labour dal 1910
Cameron decide di rompere gli indugi e promette un referendum nelle elezioni del 2015, che vince IMPORTANTE: la legge che indice il referendum è votata da tutti i partiti tranne i nazionalisti scozzesi
Il referendum che noi conosciamo come Brexit succede nel 2016 e vincono i Leave
A questo punto occorre uscire dalla UE, o convincere l’elettorato che era solo uno scherzo. Cameron si dilegua
Passano tre anni in cui i Tory di Theresa May non combinano niente, a parte una elezione fallimentare e poco entusiasmo per la Brexit. Ma il Parlamento decide di cominciare la procedura IMPORTANTE: questa decisione è a larga maggioranza, non solo voti governativi IMPORTANTE: nelle elezioni del 2017 Tory e Labour promettono che la Brexit ci sarà. Questo significa che l’80% dei parlamentari è stato eletto promettendo che la Brexit ci sarà
Adesso la Brexit non c’è stata. Chi vuole che non ci sia non ha il coraggio di chiedere al Parlamento che la blocchi del tutto, e quindi riesce solo a rimandare la data.
Nel frattempo gli elettori si chiedono se i parlamentari sono dei fedifraghi. L’ultimo sondaggio di ieri dice che l’80% pensa che questo parlamento corrente è da mandare a casa
Bisogna farla questa Brexit? Inutile avere un referendum se non si ha il coraggio di implementare qualunque decisione sia
Sarà dannosa, la Brexit? Non si può sapere. Sicuramente porterà a cambiamenti, e alcuni ne soffriranno così come altri ne trarranno vantaggi.
Bisogna preoccuparsi, della Brexit? Forse. Ma quasi tutti coloro che se ne lamentano e prevedono sventure, non si sono trasferiti altrove. I grandi giornali non hanno venduto i loro edifici e non si sono trasferiti a Parigi. Nessuno dei giornalisti contro la Brexit ha cambiato sede, e nessuno di loro ha chiesto di essere pagato in euro. Google, Apple, Bloomberg aprono quartier generali a Londra da miliardi di sterline, come se nulla fosse. Londra ha visto la sua economia crescere in maniera straordinaria anche dopo il referendum
Di cosa bisogna avere paura? Solo della paura (cit.) .
L’incertezza arreca danno molto più che la Brexit o la revoca della Brexit.
Speriamo che decidano presto in un modo o nell’altro. Chi voglia, nel suo piccolo, si adeguerà. Come sempre.
ps andrebbe fatto, un altro referendum? Visti i precedenti storici nel 1975 e 2016, un altro referendum va fatto SE E SOLO SE un partito lo promette in campagna elettorale e quel partito poi vince le elezioni
Nei decenni ci sono state diverse emigrazioni dall’Italia al Regno Unito.
Fino agli anni ’50 era un viaggio per disperati che lasciavano tutto – spesso letteralmente, la guerra aveva lasciato tanti alla fame. Lavorando sodo, si integravano perfettamente, anche se distinguibili come comunità italiana. I contatti con i parenti e amici in Italia erano quasi inesistenti.
Dopo si è unita l’emigrazione professionale – persone che emigravano per scelta e per spirito imprenditoriale. Lasciavano tutto anche loro, i contatti erano al massimo i 900KHz sulla radio verso le 23 (se non sapete di cosa parlo, non preoccupatevi). Anche questi si integravano – amici britannici, notizie britanniche, famiglie britanniche, abitudini britanniche, Natale con panettone e Xmas cake.
Poi sono arrivati internet, i social…e i nuovi disperati. Disoccupati fino al midollo che emigrano perché non vedono alcuna speranza nel posto da cui vengono – ma non vorrebbero emigrare. Sono pronti a tutto e si specializzano in lavori da salario minimo. Non hanno molte possibilità neanche in UK ma almeno la speranza di un futuro migliore.
Però tanti di questi non si integrano.
Odiano il nuovo Paese, non sopportano i lunghi inverni bui e piovosi (se non freddi e nevosi), non sanno niente della società intorno a loro, conoscono solo altri disperati che vivono ai margini in comunità fatte di Whatsapp e Facebook. Non sanno chi sia a capo del loro Council, o perché esistano ancora i Windsor, che ci faccia la Regina a Natale in TV, chi siano i Monty Python o Fawlty Towers, e mai visto Father Ted (censurato in Italia). Guardano Sanremo su internet, conoscono i rappers italiani, dicono a tutti che torneranno appena possibile, magari domani. Non sanno perché le lapidi britanniche si cancellino dopo pochi decenni, o il bello di mangiare bubble and squeak.
Questi disperati, Brit-ofobi, costantemente con il sangue amaro, eternamente di passaggio, convinti che decine di milioni di persone intorno a loro siano buzzurri ignoranti sporchi che non capiscono niente – sono questi, quelli che mi preoccupano.
Te li ritrovi anche qui, tutti Remoaning e tutti che sputano nel piatto in cui mangiano, che tifano perché la sterlina crolli, ci sia la recessione, vada tutto a catafottersi così loro, magari in un tugurio al piano inferiore di un basement flat, saranno contenti e felici.
Ogni tanto uno viene fuori: “NCULO TUTTI IO O TROVATO LAVORO IN TALIA”
Ma tu sai che poi ritorna. Sempre più amareggiato, sempre più macchietta, sempre più fallito. E che mi preoccupa, perché chi lo incontra penserà, ma davvero gli Italiani erano quelli con i carri armati con una marcia avanti, e quattro indietro.
We will walk around Aldgate on the Eastern side of the City of London and stop at the many apparently anonymous sites where big and small things have happened throughout 2000 years of history, from the invisible underground station to the micro forests on a wall, the patron Saint of travel, the Norwegian connection, the first department store, delusional urban planning, and a Rothschild. Includes a tragedy of travel, killing corpses, falling bombs, the inevitable Mr Ripper and some poetry of death.
We will walk through Whitechapel up to the edge of Stepney and experience dozens of apparently anonymous sites where big and small things have happened throughout the centuries, from the large Jewish and now Bangladeshi immigration communities to the disappeared churches, unique medical cases, founders of nations and magical former breweries. Includes a stop where a monster killer did his dastardly deeds more than a decade before Jack the Ripper.
Aldgate:It was an interesting walk and I learnt lots of things about Aldgate neighbourhood. Maurizio is very knowledgeable and well prepared with old pictures and maps to give you an idea of the past. Short notice booking and single person tour worked out well and justify the price. Thanks Maurizio.
Whitechapel:Well-known places of interest, historical anecdotes, secret hideaways and delicious food, Maurizio brought all this and more to the experience. Backed up by an extensive knowledge of the area and his own passion for exploring (and researching) past the well documented. We looked at the well-known, but mostly at the not so obvious, which made it much more interesting. Where we saw nothing of interest at first sight, Maurizio proved us wrong and created a whole past world before our eyes. Great fun. We all left really happy – helped by our last stop at a 100 year old family held bakery where we tried our first crodoughs
The Italian South is an area very beautiful,
The sun is warm and it never gets any cold,
The sea is sprarkling and blue-green
Here you never see any pollution
We are happy people, we’re super-happy
We never need really any thing ..
Here we live off air .. -Here we live off air!
The Italian South is truly a paradise
If you really want to die you have to get killed
Oh peoples believe me when I say
Here we do not know what illness is ..
And I do not understand what is the reason
They build a hospital in all our cities
It’s all useless! ..
Here nobody ever dies ..
Even the cemeteries don’t exist here!
The Italian South’ climate is amazing
Physiological needs: there are none at all
It is in the North that people drink and eat
And so they need free up their bellies
Oh peoples believe me when I say
We in the South do not feel this need
Here we live off air .. -Here we live off air!
Here we live off air, right?
And what’s going through the rulers’ head?
They want industrialize through us all
Why can’t they mind their business -what need
Could the South have for any industry?
Because what need is there to work
With sky, moon and sea like ours?
Here we live off air .. – Here we live off air, right?
And what’s going through the rulers’ head?
They even want to build us schools
Don’t they know that here in the South
We are all people of sciences and of letters?
Schools are made for those who are ignorant
Not for us that we are intralligent
But you say: if there you live of air
All this emicration, how does one explain it?
One can explain, one can explain!
Because we really like to travel
To know other peoples, other countries:
America, Australia, France,
Germany, Switzerland, Belgium …
And even Italy! Why, do you think Milan is bad?
And Turin, is there anything missing from Turin?
“Ye were not form’d to live the life of brutes,
‘But virtue to pursue and knowledge high.’”
The emicration … One can explain, one can explain!! For sure!
They tell me that in the North the nights are dark,
Them full of fog and them all full of fears
But here it’s always a day so clear
So why would we any electricity really need?
Why did they put up all these streetlights
If there is the moon that can brighten us?
It’s all useless! ..
Here we see very well even at night ..
We’ve got such a moon!
Our moon mood swings start from the morning!
And you have built us super-motorways
Long and wide and forty thousand meters
But why did you have to get them paved?
For we now can’t plant there potatoes!
But not for us,
Because we do not need to eat
But to send them potatoes to the North!
Because we do not need anything
Because here we live off air
Here we live off air
We do not need anything
Never mind do not worry
Nothing needs be done!
Here we live off air, off air, right?
What now, do I need to convince you with a beating
That here we live off air, we live off air, right?
Forget it … you do not have to get upset …
Do not worry! Here we live off air
We live off air! We live off air! No? Didn’t you know?
What is the long-term perspective of present-day, often suicidal terrorism?
It’s that there isn’t much to fear about, because terrorism is peculiarly idiotic and bound to destroy itself (unless we do anything egregiously wrong)
For the law of diminishing returns, either attacks get bigger and bigger, or the targeted population will choose habituation rather than increased fear. It’s like opening the proverbial bonfire with the stakes too high, and having to destroy one’s forest simply to keep up
With millions of potential victims, some of them will surely come up one day with novel solutions to prevent the killings, making further attacks quite hard to organize: think the Israeli wall, think the changed tactics of the US Navy after the first round of Japanese Kamikaze pilots
Just like then, “the best and the brightest” in the terror organization are bound to blow themselves up. They can be substituted, but it does take around two decades to make another terrorist. In the meanwhile, ranks will be increasingly more replete of coward weasels that couldn’t stomach the suicide they themselves require of others
For the same reason, terrorists will become stupider and stupider, lone losers who will discredit the terror organization by their very existence
Those people want to die whilst the rest of the world wants to live. Guess who’ll be sticking around the longest? On average, both aspirations are bound to be fulfilled.
In the fight against relatively well-organized societies, the only way to victoryfor the terrorists is to get hold of weapons of mass destruction – otherwise the chances of any one person becoming a victim will remain vanishingly small. And what will happen of WMDs in the hands of a suicidal terror organization populated by coward weasels and lone losers? Boom…and there go the terrorists
The only rational response to terrorism is to get on with one’s life.
McLendon like countless before him appears to be spending a lot of energy on stuff that looks good without any worry about effectiveness. It’s a lot of grandstanding without a proper concern for nature, as if environmentalists did it to soothe their soul and nothing else.
In this case I remember reading about the shaky scientific basis of these corridors and bridges. In other words…you can lead a bear to a wildlife corridor but…can you make her cross it?
Yesterday I had noticed that casual readers would only get the message that a climate researcher was somehow involved with undeclared corporate interests. This is because the online article was titled “Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate-Change Researcher” with no reference to the outside-of-the-consensus position of Willie Soon, who found himself representing literally any climate scientist.
Given what happens with politicians, it would then be expected that the same casual readers would conclude some form of corruption be endemic to climate science. Not exactly the Narrative favored by the New York Times.
Turns out the same online article has since been changed, at least in the title, that now reads “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher“. Apart from the dramatizing use of “Deeper”, the important bit is the addition of “Doubtful” – removing at last the apparent smear against all climate scientists of every opinion.
A last-minute correction following a blog post? It’s not so simple. Here’s the story as I can see it now
1. The original article (“Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate-Change Researcher“) appeared online before 2AM EST Sunday Feb 22, as per Wayback Machine. It was timestamped “3:05PM”, presumably Saturday Feb 21
2. The same title appeared on the official Facebook NYT pages, timestamped 12:53AM Sunday – AFAIK, that’s GMT, or in other words, 7:53PM Saturday EST
3. Same title got propagated by various news outlets and blogs
4. Then something happened. The printed (US) edition of Sunday showed the new title (“Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher“). I do not know if more than one printing is done on Sundays: assuming it is not, the change was made in a real hurry as one can only presume 2AM is already a little late for the printers
5. Whoever ordered the change, forgot to distribute it in full. So the International New York Times, printed for delivery on Monday, still carried a version of the old title (apologies for the small size of the picture)
6. Both versions of the article are visible on the International NYT archive – in fact I am not aware of any material change in the text between one title and the other
7. Yesterday I then noticed that the original “Ties” version was on the NYT website – another misdistribution of the correction. But by sometimes in the AM GMT, the online title was changed to the new “Deeper” version too.
Whatever one thinks of Willie Soon’s stupid idea of concealing corporate funding – and even admitting the story is not yet another Greenpeace half-baked job – for some reason the NYT has titled the article “climate change researcher” (not “skeptic” or “denier” or “contrarian”) in the website and “climate researcher” in the printed international edition.
In the website the link Soon/denial (of risks) is at the 9th line. Not sure how many went that far.
This means that in the eyes of casual viewers (who would have only read the title) the entire category of “climate change researchers” has now suffered ignominy.
Partially-interested viewers (those who only read the title and the end of the article) will be given the impression that science publications don’t work too hard on enforcing their own standards. Once again, a collective smearing job.
Never say a climate change alarmist is any good for science.
Since it’s Veteran’s Day in the USA, I am posting a recap of the story of Charles J Morabito, killed in the proximity of the Berga extermination camp in the last weeks of World War II, and whose temporary resting place appears in a relatively famous picture taken shortly after the war.
Plus I’ll mention brothers Anthony “Tony” F. Morabito and Frank A. Morabito, Purple Heart both of them, killed in action in December 1944 and February 1945 respectively and currently next to each other at the Épinal American Cemetery and Memorial, France.
I feel particularly attached to these stories having researched them for more than four years before being able to collate some information. BTW I have had the privilege to visit Tony and Frank in France and plan to go see Charles as soon as I can arrange a trip to his cemetery in Cuyahoga County, OH.
I will also travel one day to what remains in Berga.
Described by fellow prisoner Joe Mark as “reckless”
Escaped in March 1945, probably on the 15th. Was captured while milking a cow not far from the camp, a reckless act indeed but still done after having been starved for weeks (the cow, has it happens, made a noise)
Killed by his captors, probably shot on the spot with wooden bullets
Charles’ tomb in Berga (where the body was transferred after the camp was liberated) was photographed by NARA (see photo at the top of this post).In 2006, by pure chance that same picture got printed on the pages of the International Herald Tribune and that’s where I noticed it, kicking off all the search to collect this information
Sons of Frank Anthony Morabito and Maria Nicola Salvatore.
Last US address: 161 West Avenue, Spencerport, Monroe County, NY
Tony enlisted on May 22, 1944 at Fort Dix, NJ. Service #42142051 in the 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army
Frank enlisted on April 14, 1944 at Fort Dix, NJ. Service #56374374 in the 274th Infantry Regiment, 70th Infantry Division, U.S. Army
Both ranked Private First Class, noted as mechanics, single, without dependents.
Tony and Frank “died of wounds” during action in Germany and France respectively, only 11 weeks apart
They had at lest two brothers: Arthur Carmelo Morabito, veteran of WW II, Korea and Vietnam, retired a Lt. Colonel from the U.S. Air Force; and Joseph Bruno Morabito, veteran of WW II as a Tech. 5, 154th engineers and awarded four battle stars having seen combat in Peilelu, Saipan Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima.
This means their family might have had four siblings fighting in WWII at the same time
There was a commenter at a blog I shall not mention who simply could not get anything I mentioned. Anything at all.
There was the blog owner at another unmentioned site who simply could not see anything wrong in people describing a prominent climate skeptic’s work as non accidentally cherry picked bad statistics [that] generated misleading graphs – all in the comments section of a blog post allegedly questioning where the dividing line stands between scientific criticism and libel (on the back of Mann’s latest juridical foray).
There was the anti-GMOer who turned pro-GMO for reasons that virtually coincide with all that’s good in climate skepticism, and still refused to abandon the “planet is doomed, skeptics are evil” party line. And he was not alone.
There was the accidental Nobel Prize winner who wrote column after column about how fearful climate change is, and how wrong it is to live in fear. Sadly, those points never appeared in the same column.
There were countless climate scientists who were so specialized in their own little field, they started reading and linking to the almighty pile of scientifically sounding garbage written by a cartoonist and the climate blogger with the biggest conflict of interest imaginable, a site where no research was safe from manipulation.
When climate alarmism is around, rooms really look clever.
It shows that there is little dry land on Earth where the antipodes are dry land as well, instead of just ocean. This can be explained at least partially by there being only 29.2% of land.
In theory then, every piece of land has only 29.2% chance of being a place where “if you drill through the globe, you’ll hit land on the other side” (as written by a commenter on Twitter to describe the situation very briefly). However, since the land is concentrated in huge continents the actual number is likely smaller.
For example Africa covers 20.3% of the Earth’s land, i.e. 5.9% of the total surface. The simplified chance of finding land on the other side of Africa is therefore (remaining land)/(ocean surface+remaining land), i.e. (29.2-5.9)/((100-29.2)+(29.2-5.9))=22% (this is because Africa cannot be at its own antipodes).
End of story? Not quite. A comprehensive look at the situation reveals it as full of tantalizingly curious details.
The picture above (click to enlarge -hope it’s clear enough even if a bit rough!) uses transparency to show what’s on the other side of the world (original Mercator projection by Google Maps -used here as I’m interested in directions – the map by Amazing Maps uses the Peters projection instead).
Among the amazing peculiarities:
Australia seems cut out of the lower North Atlantic ocean. Its coastline follows the contours of the eastern US coast, then the coasts of Venezuela, the Guyanas and Brazil, and even partially the western coast of Africa
Likewise North America has the perfect shape to fit in the Indian Ocean, roughly following the south-eastern coast of Africa and then curving as if to “avoid” Australia
The northern coasts of Russia and Alaska eerily follow (on the other side of the world) the same path as much of the coast of Antarctica: what is land to the north is ocean in the south, and vice-versa
The antipodes of Africa and of most of the Eurasian continent sit comfortably in the Pacific ocean. Europe manages to just touch New Zealand, and only partially so (mostly, this concerns the volcanic northern island of NZ)
The entire path of India’s migration from Madagascar to the Himalayas is antipodal to and follows the contour of the ocean to the west of Mexico
The odd ones out are (a) the area of Chile and Argentina, corresponding to central China and eastern Mongolia; (b) the Antarctic Peninsula, just to the south of Chile and Argentina and jutting towards them and (c) Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago
Note also that almost exactly on the other side of the narrow strip of land known as Central America, there is the elongated archipelago known as Malaysia and Indonesia.
If confirmed with a more accurate map, my impression would be that there is a hitherto-hidden physical law at play here. It seems that continents cannot simply hang about at random locations, and their place in the Big Schema of the Planet depends on something that has been overlooked until now.
For example, consider that Pangea was constituted 300 million years ago and began to break up 200 million years ago. Now, if we reduced 100 million years to just one year, Earth would be spinning at more than 1,000 revolutions a second. From the point of view of a continent, our planet is like a centrifuge. This has to have its consequences.
What Steven Goddard, suyts, WUWT, the Bish, McI and many others are writing about (and myself at times during the years) is not so much what climate science should be and actually isn’t. Climate science is obviously being done somewhere else. You need time, money, political support, access to mainstream media, and much more, in order to do public health policy-affecting climate science.
They/we are describing the elusion that has taken over much of what passes as climate science.
It was surface temps before it was heat hiding in the deep oceans. It was decreasing snow before it was increasing snow. It was ice extent before it was ice volume. Etc etc. Whatever happens, there is always a new story devised/concocted to “explain” that whatever is happening is wholly compatible with AGW and especially with the “it’s worse than we thought” meme.
And sadly that’s all true. Whatever happens _is_ wholly compatible with AGW. We all know that there is no possible observation that would disprove the idea that the climate is changing for the worse (if anybody knows of of any, please do tell). This has made the whole enterprise extremely foggy, and constantly bordering between science and faith.
We have no way to tell what is scientifically plausible to think about future climates.
An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities. The phenomenon was first investigated and described by Luke Howard in the 1810s, although he was not the one to name the phenomenon. The temperature difference usually is larger at night than during the day, and is most apparent when winds are weak. UHI is most noticeable during the summer and winter.
Does UHI have a large role to play in global warming? Maybe. Maybe not. But it surely has a very visible impact in the Po Valley in Italy.
This is a Eumetsat picture from sometimes on Dec 8, 2013. Can you spot where the city of Milan is?
It turns out that Tetra Tech has a subsidiary company called Tetra Tech Construction, Inc. And what do they do? For example, they do “energy” (of the ALTERNATIVE variety that is):
Tetra Tech Construction expertise in the alternative energy field allows us to support and deliver energy-related projects using engineer-procure-construct (EPC), design-build and/or bid-build models. We provide design and construction services for wind, solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, natural gas drilling and extraction, combined-cycle, waste-to-energy, and electric transmission projects. […]
Surprise, surprise, they are also big in…”wind energy“:
Tetra Tech Construction brings our expertise to support and deliver energy related projects using engineer-procure-construct (EPC), design-build, bid-build models. We provide design and construction services for solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, natural gas drilling and extraction, combined-cycle, waste-to-energy, and electric transmission.
[…] We have completed construction services to clients on 19 wind construction projects in the past two years valued at more than $340 million. These projects supported nearly 1,700 MW of power, over 1,000 foundations, and over 600 turbines installed in states from New York, Alaska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, Idaho, to Oregon. In fact, the Tetra Tech family of companies has experience on more than 250 wind projects in 34 states and Canada, totaling more than 20,000 MW of wind power generation. Our experience in the construction of wind facilities provides a more practical understanding of front-end activities, including environmental compliance and engineering, thus providing a more complete perspective for achieving project goals.
Wind power is so important for Tetra Tech Construction, it takes special pride of place in their Projects portfolio map:
It also means Tetra Tech Construction is in trouble if wind power subsidies disappear, as mentioned in a newspaper article published just two days ago. In what has to be a fantastic coincidence, Tetra Tech is juxtaposed to “interests” linked to “fossil fuels” and the “XL pipeline”:
Renewal of the wind tax credit, which can provide up to $1 million to developers of a large turbine, is a politically contentious issue. In addition to tea party congressional Republicans, opposition to continuing the wind credit comes from the American Energy Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group linked to petrochemical interests that promote expanded drilling for fossil fuels, including in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and approval of the proposed XL pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Texas and the Gulf Coast.
“This lack of certainty over the wind credit creates a boom and bust cycle, which is really detrimental to wind project developers,” said Valerie Strauss, executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York, an Albany-based lobbying group for alternative energy companies.
One such local business is Gloversville-based Tetra Tech Construction. Its website says it has built 21 wind projects in the U.S. It is currently involved in building the Orangeville wind farm outside of Buffalo, owned by Chicago-based Invenergy, and the only wind farm project under construction this year.
A Tetra Tech official declined comment, referring questions to a corporate office; phone calls to that office were not returned.
The article continues revealing another fantastic coincidence: Tetra Tech’s fortunes go down with the expansion of fracking.
Wind energy plans have been shrinking in the state, as the industry faces a glut of cheap natural gas from hydrofracking, uncertainty over federal support and dwindling financing. The amount of wind power expected to one day plug into the state’s electrical grid has fallen by more than two-thirds since 2009 as developers shelve projects.
I’ll let readers decide how much such an individual can be trusted with speaking anything near the bare, honest, transparent scientific truth in anything climate change, global warming or even energy in general.
Disclaimer: I never blog or tweet or write on facebook about my day job exactlyto avoid any conflict of interest. Because if you write positively about the company you work for, everybody will be entitled to believe you’re brown-nosing or worse. And if you write negatively, you’re immediately out of a job.
Dramatic foretelling by Bill Watterson of why the IPCC has become such a risible failure. It also explains why so many unknowledgeable people are so enthusiastic about the work of “scientists” when it suits their pet causes:
(original run: Sep 21, 1993 – above taken from a recent copy of the IHT)
Calvin (looking at a book):
The more you know the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.
Calvin (throwing the book away):
Being a man of action, I can’t afford to take that risk.
Yes! There’s some silver lining in watching the initial stages of the giant Costa Concordia salvage operation…
11. Expect a vast increase in tourism as treasure hunters will flock to the area when the ship’s gone
10. Everybody knows now about Giglio island
9. The sea looked spectacularly beautiful on TV, metal parts aside
8. Plenty of thriving sea life attached itself to a million different artificial reefs for a year
7. It’s a marvel of Italian engineering (in the field of marine rescue). Navigation skills might need a review.
6. Everybody knows their way around the Costa upper-deck leisure bits (useful if they have the temerity of trying themselves)
5. Something meaningful at last, in the 24h news cycle
4. At least it wasn’t Titanic-size
3. Dismantling to come – you will soon be able to get your own Costa Concordia original plastic seat on eBay
2. Stuff under the mud will still turn up in 2,000 years’ time telling people then the way we were now (due to series of misunderstandings, statues will be erected and babies named after hero Capt. Schettino)
And the top reason is…
1. Widespread discovery there’s more to life than Candy Crush
John M. Fahey, Jr.
President and CEO
National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-4688
London, Sep 10, 2013
Dear Mr Fahey
As an expiring subscriber let me convey the profound dismay in regards to the inane publication you have the opportunity to direct. With a little thank you though, for some aspects of the September 2013 “rising seas” issue are unlikely what you expected them to be.
After decades of uninterrupted reading I gave up a few months ago, having seen the Magazine slide (fall) from its geography mission to open, fear-based “environmental” advocacy (with a lowercase “e”). It seemed and still seems there is no low you would avoid to reach in order to describe the planet or mostly cute species as either ultimately doomed or irremediably ruined: by evil humans, obviously, including one suspects all of your readers.
I stopped reading the magazine with my son, as there was simply too much to skip over what looked liked unwarranted alarmism. Who in their right mind would want to teach their children how intrinsically ‘evil’ they have been found to be (on a scientific basis!!) just because they are humans.
I was actually ready to send you back the September 2013 “rising sea” issue because, as they say, enough is sometimes enough.
An inundated New York City with a half-submerged Statue of Liberty did look more than enough. Is that something likely to happen? When? Did I really want my son to consider the possibility that our very civilization were going to cause such a major disaster by burning fossil fuels (by living, that is)? And didn’t such a picture look exactly what British leftist think-tank IPPR described in 2006 as “Climate (insert a four-letter word starting with P and ending in ORN here)”, the gratuitous depiction of apocalyptic climate-change related visions of the future? A depiction that titillates the worst parts of the readers, increases circulation and ultimately convinces people there is nothing one could possibly do to care for the environment.
In summary: had the National Geographic gone either completely insane or dishonest?
Then I looked at the front-cover a little better. And it actually said “NO ICE”. It’s almost invisible, but it’s there under the large-font cover title. So the Statue of Liberty would be half-submerged if there were no ice at all on the planet? Interesting. But not alarming at all, in fact: because suddenly it was not a matter of dishonesty; rather, as I said, of inanity.
Say, how long before there is no ice in the world? The inside pages tell us. It’s 5,000 years. Let’s just imagine we can make such a prediction for sure. 5,000 years, that is the seventy-first century. How’s that supposed to be today’s problem? Who would be silly enough to even remotely consider what the issues of the year 7000 will be?
Imagine people of 5,000 years ago, thinking about the internet and globalization? Me neither. Most of them had seen no agriculture yet, there was the third Pharaoh ever, and the first version of Troy was getting founded (source: Wikipedia). Them for us and us for them, we might as well be talking about alien worlds.
Perhaps rising seas will affect the 60th century? Or the 50th? Or even the 30th? Once again, imagine people of the year 1013AD, what could have they remotely done to understand/help us of 2013AD? Stop burning wood? Bury horse waste at sea? Repent for their sins? Obviously, it would all have been pointless. They had no idea about polluted rivers, nuclear waste storage, abandoned plastics. Come to think, even the people of 1973 would have only a rough idea about the issues of 2013, apart from a troublesome Middle East.
So the underlying message of your submerged Statue of Liberty is, in fact, a mix of “don’t care too much about it” and “someone else’s problem”. Well, what can I say, thanks! That’s a good message for the children, at last: “stop fearing the future”. Should be told to them as matter of course, no? Even if, I surmise, it’s not the message you wanted to convey, as it went from insane, to inane.
With that in mind I can now sit and enjoy in peace one of my last National Geographic issues. Look, there is even a map of the world as it would be were there no ice. And it’s an amazingly small area of some continents’ coasts that would disappear (that is, become bountiful, shallow seas). Poor Africa for once will be spared. Oh the boredom of it. Get those flying cars of the 55th century to move a little inland, will you.
Do we need to endanger the well-being of seven billion humans for that? Do we need to spread psychological terror among children with scary stories presented as established facts?
Those people of the 71st century better get used to their world, whatever it is. Just like the people of 3000BC. Is there any other way? Let’s do likewise. It’s called Geography. Not that it appears much anymore in “National Geographic”, alas!
Perhaps one day you will stop wasting time in planetary smut…do let me know if that happens, I’ll resubscribe at once!
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
In one dramatic stroke, President Obama has removed any doubts that he intends to break sharply from President George W. Bush’s policies on yet another vital issue — this time repudiating Mr. Bush’s passive approach to climate change.[…] after eight years of inaction, this is a wonderful start.
The president also singled out the issue of climate change, a subject that he raised in his first Inaugural Address but has struggled to make progress on in the face of fierce opposition in Congress and in countries around the world. In his 2009 speech, he warned about environmental threats to the planet; on Monday, he vowed to confront them.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
Mr. Obama left the details of his second-term agenda for his State of the Union speech in three weeks. But he hinted at the two major legislative battles that he has promised to wage: reform of the immigration system and new laws intended to reduce gun violence.
Note how climate doesn’t make it into the “two major legislative battles” ahead.
slowly wither away, ironically under an AGWer President just as it kept on growing during the 8 years of an anti-AGW White House Resident
In truth, it disappeared completely from the Presidential campaign. Is AGW coming back now? Or are these renewed empty promises a surefire sign the President doesn’t have much of positive he himself believes in his grasp?
All details of the story here and here. Basically Laden has tried to manipulate his readership by showing a screenshot of the WUWT site cut exactly in the only way that could put the site, and Anthony Watts, in a bad light.
Laden has retorted to the obvious by puerile statements such as
[Watts] is upset because in a screen shot of him talking about a totally absurd pseudo-scientific claim that should have been rejected out of hand, I failed to include enough of the post to show that he was skeptical about the claim […]
I did not need to show that Anthony Watts was skeptical because that wasn’t the point. The point was that it was funny that he was looking at this claim at all. But, fine, if he really needs me to include the snippet where he expresses his laughable skepticism, I can do that. Here, Watts says.
This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up.
… thus indicating skepticism. I’m sorry I did not include that sentence in the … wait, wait, hold on a sec. Hey, I DID include that phase about “if it holds up” in the original post? But Watts is saying that I did not include any of his skeptical language.
However, Laden being disingenuous, a liar or a stupid ignoramus is demonstrated by a simple observation.
The expression “if it holds up” doesn’t indicate skepticism. Nobody who reports astrology, homeopathy or UFO sightings indicates skepticism by saying “if it holds up“.
OTOH everybody who has learned skepticism from the likes of Randi, Shermer, Sagan (and Plait) knows that skepticism means saying “extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence” or an equivalent statement.
That is exactly what appears in WUWT a single line below the curiously cut screenshot by Laden.
I [Watts] would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.
IOW as Laden must have known (unless he truly knows nothing of Randi, Sagan and the others), inclusion of a few inches more would have invalidated his argument completely.
pps IMNSHO the “Meteorite with life” story is complete bunk and the only sin committed by Watts (and Willis Eschenbach) has been their unfamiliarity with Fred Hoyle student N. C. Wickramasinghe. His name is well-known among astronomy buffs and not as a source of likely-true findings.
UPDATE ppps Wickramasinghe’s dreams picked up also by The Huffington Post (look down and hard before Plait and any skepticism show up in that article).
Have global temperatures paused in their warming rise? Nonsense, according to SkS. Are we experiencing a standstill in global temperatures in their warming rise? Yes, according to Hansen et al. Have global temperatures continued to increase in their warming rise? No, according to a PR guy meddling with statistics.
So who’s right, and who’s wrong? Well, it depends the on context.
“Temps at standstill, and global warming stopped” = WRONG
“Temps at standstill, but global warming will resume later” = RIGHT
In fact, you can say pretty much anything and, as long as you add the mandatory “, but global warming will resume later“, the biggest scientific institutions in the world will support you wholeheartedly, maybe Bob Ward too.
Let’s give it a try..
“Polar bears are ok, but global warming will resume later”
“Arctic won’t be free of ice any time soon, but global warming will resume later”
“A lot of model-based literature is rubbish, but global warming will resume later”
“West Ham playing superbly, but global warming will resume later”
“Elvis is alive, but global warming will resume later”
“Porcine and bovine flight sightings, but global warming will resume later”
See? It’s easy, and it gets you a free ride indeed. Citizen science at its best!
In due parole, perché non ha senso votare chi non vuole il tuo voto.
Quali sono le alternative disponibili:
Non voto: questo è un modo di dire che non importa chi vinca. Quindi, è un voto per chi vince. E non parliamo per favore della bislacca idea della “Dichiarazione del Non Voto“. Scelta illogica.
Grillo e Cinque Stelle: seguaci delle idee strampalate di Casaleggio. Andranno in Parlamento determinati a non fare accordi con nessuno, e quindi costretti a stare zitti. Chiusi al mondo esterno, si ritengono settariamente superiori. Impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
Ingroia: un gruppo di ex-Giudici così interessati alla legalità e alla Costituzione da non pensarci due volte a trasferirsi dalle aule processuali al dibattito televisivo. Determinati a portare avanti le loro battaglie in altro consesso. Ciechi e sordi ai problemi della Giustizia al di là di quelli di categoria. Impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
Bersani e il PD: reduci cattocomunisdemocratdisinistadessosolodemocratici che hanno cestinato l’idea di Renzi di aprire al voto già PDL, voto che quindi NON vogliono. Basterebbe questo a renderli impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL. Poi aggiungiamo la patrimoniale e la morte collettiva per tasse, e stiamo a posto.
Monti: dopo aver tenuto l’indice di produzione industriale in un trend negativo per quindici-mesi-quindici, alleato a Casini e Fini. Descrive gli elettori PDL come topi. Davvero e assolutamente impossibile da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
Giannino e FARE: conosce tutte le soluzioni e le applicherebbe anche, ma passa il suo tempo a spiegare a tutti perché non sia d’accordo con ciascuno dei tutti. Spreca inutilmente energie per unirsi all’antiberlusconismo. Magari un’altra volta: impossibile da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
Silvio B avrà i suoi difetti, ma le elezioni non sono mai un concorso per scoprire la persona più adatta a governare fra tutti i cittadini della nazione. Sono un modo per scegliere il meglio che c’è.
Al cospetto dei concorrenti, e indipendentemente dal suo programma elettorale, Berlusconi rimane l’unica scelta.