Link: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kial/news.newsmain/article/0/1/1555859/Local.News/Adak.Fisheries.declares.bankruptcy

One of the last commercial reasons for businesses to visit Adak has failed...the island's fish processing plant filed for bankruptcy on September 17th. As this report explains:

According to court documents, Adak Fisheries owes money to between 100 and 199 different creditors. Independence Bank told the court they alone are owed about $6.5 million from three different loans in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The bank says the lines of credit were issued based on bogus invoices sent by Adak Fisheries and were secured by all of the processing plant's assets, including their equipment and inventory.

This sounds like gross incompetence at the very least, and possibly fraud, on behalf of the owners and managers of the fish processing plant. However, I also have no idea how or why Independence Bank was persuaded to lend that much money in three separate tranches to a struggling business in an inhospitable part of the world. The phrase "bogus invoices" suggests that some sort of fraud investigation is in order. It must be something in the water...in the meantime, the failure of the plant removes one of the last reasons for fisheries to stop in Adak, and makes the economic scene on the island even more bleak. As the article also explains:

Adak city manager Chuck Mohn said the community of about 100 has very few economic opportunities beyond the fish processing plant. Adak Fisheries and the boats it attracted to the area provided the community with sales, fuel, and fish tax revenue. Mohn said he's not sure if they can keep the city running without it.

There is some discussion of the events here.

Adak is described by one blogger as "The End of America". His blog here does a really good job of tracking the history and current existence of Adak, which over the last 15 years has gone from a massive post-Cold War military facility to a run-downm, economically marginal community eking out a living from unpredictable fishing.
This is an updated Wikipedia page for Adak that was inexplicably deleted. It gives a lot of information about this windy hellhole that is not on the "official" Wikipedia entry.
This is an account of a trip to Adak in 2006. It gives some idea of the remoteness, general decay and struggles that the island's residents operate under.
The latest event in the ongoing saga of Adak's power supply problems is that a new electricity supply utility has been assigned the job of electric power generation. TDX started to supply power on Adak on December 1st instead of Adak Electric, whose license has been revoked after numerous allegations of malfeasance.
Here is another account of a trip to Adak by a visitor who spent over a week there, and got to talk to a lot of residents.

...is very evident in the online responses to this article in Wired magazine, summarizing research by scientists that shows that torture is really a poor and ineffective mechanism for obtaining useful information in any context.
The article comments are notable for a number of instances of what I term drive-By bloviation. The commenters in question appear to be contemptuous of any conclusion based on research (you know, pesky stuff like facts, evidence and logical reasoning), since They Already Know The Right Answer. In this case, The Right Answer usually revolves around unfettered abuse during interrogation of prisoners, including more torture (surprise, surprise). The fact that the research under discussion in the article is not exactly unique or an outlier (there are numerous studies of interrogation techniques that have mostly reached exactly the same general conclusions) also appears to have been overlooked, although I have found over the years that one of the defining characteristics of drive-by bloviators is that they are totally incurious - they have no interest in doing any research or reading of their own, they simply jump on the first thing that they disagree with and savage it.
These people are contemptuous of science in all of its forms, have no understanding of the basic principles of jurisprudence (namely, that inconvenient presumption of innocence until compelling evidence to the contrary is discovered). Additionally they are insulting my intelligence and wasting my reading time by failing to even construct a semblance of an argument, although they certainly seem to like writing long and fine-sounding collections of high-and-mighty sounding phrases and sentences, which would probably sound great at the local bar over a few beers, but when written down, simply read like the pompus utterances of conceited, know-nothing drunks.
These people wouldn't know a sensible argument if it bit them in the ass, and more notably, they don't want to recognize the existence of any argument or information that would threaten or puncture the echo-chamber that they appear to live in.
It is also notable that most of the commenters are posting once then are never to be seen again. They clearly have no interest in a debate, they are Right.
In short, many of these comments are mediocre, ignorant, nonsense - the worst kind of ignorant drive-by bloviation.
UPDATE - One thing I have discovered over the years is that authoritarians are deeply unhappy when they are confronted by scientists and other learned and educated people attempting to point out that their worldviews are fundamentally fallacious and flawed. Just try putting a politician and a criminologist on the same stage and watch how long it takes for the politician to start dismissing the criminologist's views on law and order as "out of touch", "in an ivory tower" etc. etc. Usually the politicians are pandering to electors by suggesting authoritarian and useless answers to complex law and order issues, and the criminologists are often pointing out that if, by golly, the solution is all so damn simple (usually some variant on "Hang 'em High"), why (a) has it not been tried decades ago, and (b) why is it being suggested for the nth time in decades? (hint: perhaps It Doesn't Work).

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/09/08/contracts/index.html

...are explored in this article by former NFL player Ross Tucker, where he explains, that while fans are only too willing to come down hard on players who demand that their contracts be re-negotiated, the reverse is often true:

I received a call from an active player around 10 a.m. last Saturday, the day teams reduced their roster to 53. His team had just informed him (via his agent) that he would be released if he didn't agree to a significant pay cut. The player had about two hours to think it over and get back to his organization. No pressure, right?

...Most fans dislike when players sit out OTAs or training camp while angling for a new contract. The consensus seems to be that players should honor their signed deals. That's a fine thought, of course, but in this case, which party isn't honoring the long-term contract? As it stands, I think these conversations happen more often than we realize, they just aren't publicized.

As Tucker explains, the gambit of demanding that a player reduce his salary or be released has been played a number of times by teams in this off-season. When you add to that the fact that a team can cut a player at any time (if it can absorb the cap hit), the deck suddenly does not look to be stacked in the favour of the players.
Tucker's musing hits the big issue:

...I think the time will come when a player takes the next step in the game of leverage that is constantly being waged between front offices and players. If a player wants his outdated contract redone or, better yet, wants the team to cut him and put him on the lucrative free-agent market, then withholding services for a regular season or playoff game is the biggest card a player can play.

Will it happen this year? Maybe not. Will it happen soon. I think it will.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/08/lobbyblog_n_279244.html

...now being discussed in Consumerist, which is reporting on elaborate legal actions being mounted by Cash4Gold to silence ex-employees.

It is difficult to conclude that there is something wrong with the current coaching model in the NFL.

For a start, here is the list of Superbowl-winning coaches who recently left teams and are currently sitting out:

Brian Billick
Bill Cowher
Tony Dungy
Jon Gruden
Mike Holmgren
Mike Martz
Mike Shanahan

The interesting thing to note here is that Dungy, Holmgren and Cowher all walked away from the game, they were not forced out or fired.

In the "unlikely to coach again but that is not certain until the coffin lid slams shut" category we have:

Mike Ditka
Jimmy Johnson
Dan Reeves
George Siefert
Marty Schottenheimer
Barry Switzer

Former Head Coaches on NFL staffs:

Cam Cameron
Dave Campo
Scott Linehan
Rod Marinelli
Mike Mularkey
Mike Nolan
Gregg Williams

Former head coaches currently sitting it out or employed elsewhere

Romeo Crennel
Herm Edwards
Dennis Erickson
Jim Fassel
Chan Gailey
Dennis Green
Jim Haslett
Lane Kiffin
Bobby Petrino

This is a pretty long list of top-flight coaches. This does not include other coaches who decided to pass up the opportunity of being an NFL head coach and instead moved to the college game (Charlie Weis, Dave Wannstedt). Add a couple of other coaches who tried out the NFL and decided that college was more fun (Steve Spurrier, Nick Saban).
Right now, because of the trend towards hiring younger coaches, we have a number of NFL head coaches in their early to mid 30's. This clearly can work (see Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh) if there is continuity in the coaching staff.
In addition to the massive number of former head coaches either bouncing around other jobs or sitting on the sidelines, the firing of 3 offensive co-ordinators in one week in pre-season is unprecedented.
In the case of the Buffalo Bills, the firing of Turk Schonert is probably a result of results pressure on head coach Dick Jauron, who will almost certainly be fired if the Bills do not make it into the playoffs. The fact that Jauron and his assistants were summoned to meet with Bills owner Ralph Wilson suggests that they are collectively operating with a very short rope that could rapidly tighten to a noose. The poor performance of the Bills' new no-huddle offense in pre-season left the Bills looking for answers, and firing the OC is a pretty good answer, for now. Whether it will improve the operation of the offense, only time will tell. The remainder of the offensive staff is inexperienced, which does not inspire a lot of confidence. Even with Terrell Owens, the Bills offense is unlikely to strike terror into opposing teams. They may simply double-team him out of existence, and then rely on the overall mediocrity of the rest of the offense to throttle the Bills and win games.
In the case of the firing of Chan Gailey by new Chiefs coach Todd Haley, this can be explained in terms of Haley being a coach with an offensive background who wants to call the plays himself. This is not new in NFL head coaching circles. A lot of head coaches call or called the offensive plays themselves. Thinking of past coaches we have Bill Parcells, Mike Holmgren, Mike Martz to name but three. Gailey was a holdover from the Herm Edwards era, but sooner or later Haley and he would probably have clashed over offensive play-calling, especially since Gailey is more conservative than Haley.
The case of the firing of Jeff Jagodzinski in Tampa Bay is the most puzzling, but also in many ways the most revealing. Although Bucs coach Raheem Morris seemed determined to obfuscate over the real reasons for Jagodzinski's dismissal, there were plenty of leaks from with the Bucs organization attempting to explain the underlying reason for his firing.
Most of the reasons however, appear to me to be symptomatic of the fact that Jagodzinski, unlike many other NFL coaches, seems to think that a head coach is there to set direction, and then get out of the way and let his assistants coach. He deferred most of the play-calling and coaching details to his assistants, only providing directional input on plays. This apparently led to issues when the Bucs tried game simulations, and the multiple coaches involved in relaying plays to the quarterback led to delay of game penalties. However, by all accounts, the Bucs additionally wanted him to be wading into all of the little details of running an NFL offense, going beyond the zone-blocking scheme for which he had become known from his previous NFL time with the Atlanta Falcons. When he declined to do that, the conclusion that the Bucs seemed to reach was that he was in over his head.
While the firing of Jagodzinski sounds like a classic mismatch of expectations on both sides, it is also revealing. The NFL coaching model appears to place a high premium on head coaches and co-ordinators engaging in detail coaching activities. Jagodzinski, who came back into the NFL from Boston College, where he had been the head coach (but was fired after he interviewed for the vacant New York Jets head coaching position), seemed to have evolved a model where he delegated a lot of detail work to his co-ordinators and position coaches. This apparently did not sit at all well with Raheem Morris or the Bucs front office.
From observing recent events, it appears that offensive co-ordinators who try to delegate too much detail work being labelled as incompetent or out of their depth, while co-ordinators who are working for a head coach who was previously an offensive co-ordinator risk being emasculated, and ultimately rendered disposable. It is interesting that we do not see the same model of head coaches calling defensive strategy in games, even though a lot of head coaches have defensive backgrounds. Most head coaches are content to have the defensive co-ordinator run that side of the team.
All of which suggests to me that the overall coaching model, when compared to a conventional business, is decidedly dysfunctional. It also appears that the youth movement in coaching has taken over to a ludicrous extent, when coaches like Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher are sitting on the sidelines collecting money from their previous franchises for doing nothing.

Courtesy of the Guardian newspaper, some revelations about unscrupulous shit-like behaviour from Richard Nixon, who spent a lot of time and energy trying to dig dirt on Senator Edward Kennedy in case he ran against him in the 1972 Presidential election. Gosh, wasn't Tricky Dickie a class act?
A Republican candidate for elective office in Idaho is caught laughing along with a moonbat meeting attendee who thinks it would be cool to issue Obama hunting tags. When called on it, he claims he was "being sarcastic". Sure you were being sarcastic. I have a bridge near New York to sell you, and you're an un-American little dipshit too.
A Republican representative is surprised when his false claims about medical treatment denial are shouted down at a town hall meeting...priceless.
Simon Dee, who was Britain' first TV chat show host, and for a period of three years was just about the biggest celebrity in the UK, before he abruptly fell to earth, died at the age of 74. His was a textbook example of zero-to-hero-to-zero, and what happens when you start to believe all of your own propaganda...however, his style and brash "ladies man" persona lives on in the Austin Powers movies.

Link: http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=6728&tabla=miami

For some time now, I have tended to drink relatively little in the way of non-diet sodas. This is partly because I have been (successfully) working to lose weight - down from 242 pounds in the early Summer to to 222 now. I am working to get down to less than 210 pounds by October.
One non-diet soda that I have not yet given up, however, is Coke, as long as it is Mexican Coke. Several years ago I found large bottles of Mexican Coke in Central Market in Dallas, and made the discovery that a lot of other people have made - that this variant of Coke actually tastes like Coke as I remember it when growing up. The reason appears to be because it is sweetened with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, which has almost totally displaced sugar as a drink sweetener in the USA because of cost.
This article explains how Coca-Cola is not happy that Coke is being imported from Mexico in this way, although the imports are not illegal since there is no counterfeiting of merchandise occurring.
Coca-Cola's attempts to stop these imports might be due to its contractual arrangements with bottlers in various territories and legal jurisdictions, but they are counter-productive. Afficionados of this variant of Coke are prepared to pay a hefty premium for it. I currently pay around $20 a case of 24 bottles for it at Costco. That is around $0.83 a bottle - a lot more than I would pay for a similar-capacity can of US Coke.
A naive person like me wonders why Coca-Cola does not simply sell it on import and collect most of the revenue for its US operation, instead of having to tolerate "gray market" imports and then whine about them. There is clearly a significant demand for this variant of Coke in the USA. But no matter, in the meantime I will continue to enjoy a cold bottle of "The Real Thing" on the patio in the evenings. Viva Mexico!

Link: http://pubrecord.org/religion/3355/ex-chaplain-offered-sacrifice-jesus/

The article explains it very neatly:

Gordon Klingenschmitt is a far-right Christian fundamentalist who claims he sacrificed his 16-year career in the military and a million dollar pension because he was targeted for praying publicly in Jesus’ name while serving as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy.
...but those claims are flat-out lies.

The article sketches out the whole story, which shows that Klingenschmitt was fired from the Navy for disobeying the valid order of a superior officer. His whole public persona since then has been built around the concept that he is a religious martyr. In the process he has created an entirely false persona and is attempting to BS his way through the rest of his life pretending that he is the victim of religious persecution.
I am shocked, but not surprised that once again, lacking any legitimate justification for his actions, a Christian is wallowing in lies, BS and martyrdom. Having seen it in the Evolution vs. Creation debate all over the USA, it appears to be more widespread than I suspected.

Eric Boehlert in Media Matters has gotten around to neatly summarizing what I concluded many moons ago - the mass media and commentators in this country are a bunch of myopic, biased fools. As he reminds us:

As early as June 2003, The New York Times was fretting over whether Howard Dean's "angry message" would be his downfall. "All the Rage," read a Newsweek headline on a Dean profile.
And in two features in the summer of 2003, The Washington Post described Dean as "abrasive," "flinty," "cranky," "arrogant," "disrespectful," "fiery," "red-faced," a "hothead," "testy," "short-fused," "angry," "worked up," and "fired up." And trust me, none of those adjectives was used in a complimentary way. In fact, the Post took pains to distinguish Dean's anger from that of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom the paper termed "brilliantly cranky."

But oh my, how times have changed! Suddenly this summer, as right-wing mini-mobs turn health care forums into free-for-alls, as unhinged political rage flows in the streets, and as the Nazi and Hitler rhetoric flies, anger is in. Suddenly anger is good. It's authentic. It's newsworthy. Reading and watching the mini-mob news coverage, the media message seems clear: Angry speaks to the masses.
Instead of being turned off by the displays of passion the way they had been when liberal protesters took to the streets prior to the Iraq war, media elites have been touting the mini-mob trend as a "phenomenon" (USA Today) staffed by a "citizen army" (Bloomberg News).

As Boehlert then snarkily observes:

Bottom line: Liberal protesters don't tell us anything about the mood of America. But angry right-wingers do, according to the press.

There is plenty more in the article, but I will leave you to read it.
The bottom line is that what we are seeing in the town halls is not "democracy in action", nor is it any form of sensible manifestation of the democratic process. When people show up at a town hall and boo stories meant to illustrate the need for healthcare reform, that is not civil discourse. That is people behaving like mean-spirited moronic little shits. Neither is showing up outside a political meeting with an ostentatiously-displayed firearm.
To re-cycle an old saying, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. I have heard no plausible rationalization for standing around outside a meeting about healthcare with a prominently-displayed firearm. I think I know what the real reason for that display is, and it has a lot to do with a desire to intimidate.
The bottom line is that nobody in the media currently appears to have the cojones to call many of the town hall protesters out for what they are: mean-spirited, bullying, misinformed and wilfully ignorant, and anti-American in the widest sense of the word. These people have no interest in the democratic process, sensible, intelligent, informed debate, or any form of co-operation. They are only interested in being loud, obnoxious, threatening and unconstructive. Time to call this bunch of jerks for what they are. Of course they will whine and wave their hands and complain about "media bias", but guess what? All bullies whine and do that when they are told to knock it off. All that is needed is for the message to be repeated and reinforced enough times, then they will fold and slink off back to where they came from.
Time to call crappy behaviour for what it is, folks.
UPDATE - One of the less edifying features of the town hall rabble is that in many cases, the elected representatives whose meetings they are disrupting seem unable or unwilling to muster the cojones to face down and call out their insane and sinister prattlings. Wally Herger (R-Redding) can be seen in this video apparently failing to object in any way to the rantings of an attendee at his meeting, who seems to see no issue in describing himself as a "right-wing terrorist".
Herger clearly could not even remember to remind him of the famous saying that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I tend to think that Herger is below fuckwit status in his reaction to this nonsense, he appears to be engaging in the worst kind of nodding-dog pandering.