People Sometimes Say That I Take Too Many Risks?

Life is risk.

Media Links

Local News Partners:

• 
  

  -

• 
  

  

• 
  

  

• 
  

  

• 
  

  
  
  PRwatch.org

• 
  

  
  
  CommonCause.org - The Media and Democracy Report

• 
  

  

---

• Think
  Progress -
  

  

• 
  

  
  
  SPJ.org

• 
  

  

• 
  

  

• 
  

  

• MediaMatters.org
• Center for Media Justice
• National Conference For Media Reform
• AlterNet -
  "It's about the people"
• Democracy Matters
• Ad
  Busters - Media Carta
• SourceWatch.org
• FreePress.net Activists Tools
• OnTheMedia.org
• Fairness and
  Accuracy In Reporting
• CommonDreams.org
• Democracy Now
• The
  Media Consortium
• New
  Public Media
• The Nation: How to Save Journalism
• Propublica - independent non-profit investigative
  journalism

Fwd: Do Not Advertise List

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Mike Thaller" <Mike@ThallerHome.com>

Date: July 17, 2009 8:34:19 AM PDT

To: <smagallanez@sbcglobal.net>, <mike.russell@libertyoneradio.com>, "'Hector Bonilla'" <hector@bafaccounting.com>, "'Mike Copass'" <california53@gmail.com>, <mariah.dennstedt@yahoo.com>

Subject: Do Not Advertise List

Reply-To: <Mike@ThallerHome.com>

At one of our recent meetings I mentioned the memo of advertisers that refused to advertise on progressive talk radio.  The memo is attached.  The memo went out to radio stations that used ABC Network news and told them who refused to advertise on Air America affiliates and that they should "black out" and commercials for these advertisers during the news broadcast.  This was back when Air America and KLSD had only been on the air a few months.

 

Interesting, I think, that both Microsoft and GE are on the list.  They are the co-owners of MSNBC and later discovered that there was a market for progressive "news" and that profit trumps political philosophy.

 

I'm off to San Francisco in a couple hours.  See you later,

 

 

Mike Thaller

'Mysterious' Ocean Current...

This is not the first time this has occurred nor will it be the last...
We are used to dealing with RIP Currents at the water's surface, but this is a current dangerous for SCUBA Divers.

Thanks to Terry Straight, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and KFMB Ch 8, divers now will know and understand this phenomenum.



Not so mysterious, but important to know and understand.

Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected

techno-vampire writes with word that a long-accepted model of deep ocean currents is inaccurate. Deep Sea News has a summary of the research, to be published in Nature. TheWoods Hole press release has more details. "A 50 year old model of global thermohaline circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream is now formally called into question by an armada of subsurface RAFOS floats drifting 700 - 1500m deep. Nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean. This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change."

Discuss this story at: Slashdot

Homeless Children in San Diego

Homeless Children! In San Diego!!
They turn to prostitution for money!
This is Crazy.

Campaign for Abandoned Youth Trailer: www.stayclassy.org from StayClassy.org on Vimeo.

Beach Bash for Obama - La Jolla Shores, CA

Location
La Jolla Shores
8400 El Paseo Grande
North Kellog Park San Diego, CA 92101
760 438-2529

How to find us
"Look for the signs and banners at the north end of the parking lot."

Obama Beach Bash
Outreach, Fellowship, Fun, Action

Obama and Democratic Slate
Beach Party and Outreach Event
Saturday, September 6th, 2008

Schedule
6:00 AM - Set Up Crew: Tent off 2-3 Fire Rings, Set Up Park
8:00 AM - Volunteers Arrive: Set up Campaign Village and schedule coverage.
11:00 - Start BBQ
12:00 Noon - Official Start Time
2:00 - 3:00 - Candidates Speak
5:00 - Bonfire Setup
6:00 - Close BBQ and Campaign Village, Start Drum Circle and Bonfire

Once Again, Michael Moore Says it Best

Hi everyone,

I received this message from Michael Moore and I thouht you all would like to read it.

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around?
A Letter from Michael Moore
January 2, 2008

Friends,
A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,
Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Allison Terry

How long can you hold your breath?

The Rachel L. CARSON

The Sense of Wonder - by Rachel Carson


The Edge of the Sea - Rachel Carson


The Sea Around Us - by Rachel Carson


Silent Spring - By Rachel Carson


Under the Sea - Wind, By Rachel Carson

McTaggart - the Unreality of Time 1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart#.22The_Unreality_of_Time.22_.281908.29

John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart (September 3, 1866 – January 18, 1925) was an Idealist metaphysician. For most of his life McTaggart was a lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was considered one of England's leading Hegel scholars at the beginning of the 20th century and among the most notable of the British Idealists.

"The Unreality of Time" (1908)

In The Unreality of Time (1908), the work for which he is best known today, McTaggart argued that our perception of time is an illusion, and that time itself is merely ideal. He introduced the notions of the "A series" and "B series" interpretations of time, representing two different ways that events in time can be arranged. The A series corresponds to our everyday notions of past, present, and future. The A series is "the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future" (p. 458). This is contrasted with the B series, in which positions are ordered from earlier to later, i.e. the series running from earlier to later moments.

McTaggart argued that the A series was a necessary component of any full theory of time, but that it was also self-contradictory and that our perception of time was therefore an ultimately incoherent illusion.

The Necessity of the A series

The first, and longer, part of McTaggart's argument is his affirmative answer to the question "whether it is essential to the reality of time that its events should form an A series as well as a B series" (p. 458). Broadly, McTaggart argues that if events are not ordered by an A as well as a B series then there cannot be said to be change. At the centre of his argument is the example of the death of Queen Anne. This event is a death, it has certain causes and certain effects, it is later than the death of Queen Elizabeth etc., but none of these properties change over time. Only in one respect does the event change:

"It began by being a future event. It became every moment an event in the nearer future. At last it was a present event. Then it became past, and will always remain so, though every moment it becomes further and further past. Thus we seem forced to the conclusion that all change is only a change in the characteristics imparted at to events by their presence in the A series" (p. 460).

Despite its power and originality this half of McTaggart's argument has, historically, received less attention than the second half.

[edit]

The Incoherence of the A series

What is most often presented as McTaggart's attempted incoherence of the A series (the argument of pages 468-9) appears in the original paper only as a single part of a broader argument for this conclusion, but it can be extended to have general application. According to the argument, the contradiction in our perception of time is that all events exemplify all three of the properties of the A-series, viz. being past, present and future. The obvious response is that while exemplifying all three properties at some time, no event exemplifies all three at once, no event is past, present, and future. A single event is present, has been future, will be past, and here there is, it seems, no contradiction.

McTaggart's great insight is that this ascent will apparently give rise to a 'vicious circle' or 'vicious infinite series'. On the one hand, the response depends upon the A-series to make sense. To distinguish the properties of being present, having been future and going to be past requires a conception of time divided into past, present and future, and hence of the A-series.

"Accordingly the A series has to be pre-supposed in order to account for the A series. And this is clearly a vicious circle" (p. 468).

The same difficulty can be represented as a 'vicious infinite series'. One can construe the response above as "constructing a second A series, within which the first falls, in the same way in which events fall within the first" (p. 469). But even if the idea of a second A series within which the first falls makes sense (and McTaggart doubts it does, p. 469), it will face the same contradiction. And so, we must construct a third A series within which the second falls. And this will require the construction of a fourth A series and so on ad infinitum. At any given stage the contradiction will appear; however far we go in constructing A series, each A series will be, without reference to a further A series containing it, contradictory. One ought to conclude, therefore, that the A series is indeed contradictory and, therefore, does not exist.

Lifeguard Adventures

Michael Russell, Owner

PO Box 83841

San Diego, CA 92138-3841

(619) 206-4361

mike@lifeguardadventures.com

Secret Societies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collegiate_secret_societies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Hat_Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles

Lifeguard Adventures

Michael Russell, Owner

PO Box 83841

San Diego, CA 92138-3841

(619) 206-4361

mike@lifeguardadventures.com

Summer Pictures

Below is a link to some of the pictures I took over the last year.
Enjoy.

http://www.michaelrussell.name/



Big Cool Surf

SAN DIEGO BEACH AND WEATHER REPORT: THURS, JAN 5, 9:30AM
(619) 221-8824

SKY: CLEAR
AIR VISIBILITY: 10 MILES
BAROMETER: 30.22+ IN.
WIND: 3 KNOTS FROM EAST
AIR TEMP: 54 F
WATER TEMP: 58 F

SURF CONDITIONS:
OCEAN BEACH - 4-6 POOR TO FAIR
MISSION BEACH - 4-6 FAIR FORM
LA JOLLA REEFS - 3-5 FAIR TO GOOD
LA JOLLA SHORES -1-3 FAIR TO GOOD
SWELL W 8-10 SECOND INTERVALS

DIVING VISIBILITY: DIVING NOT ADVISED DUE TO SURF
LA JOLLA COVE - CLOSED
LA JOLLA SHORES - FAIR 10- VISIBILITY, LIGHT SURGE

MISSION BAY CHANNEL: CALM FOR NAVIGATION

TIDES:
LOW 7:16 AM, 2.0 FT.
HIGH 12:56 PM, 4.5 FT.
LOW 7:34 PM, 0.4 FT

CONTAMINATION:
NONE POSTED

SAFETY CONCERNS:
LA JOLLA SHORES BOAT LAUNCH, CLOSED

MORE INFORMAION - SAN DIEGO COUNTY ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH (619) 338-2073
WHEN COMMING TO THE BEACH: ALWAYS SWIM NEAR A LIFEGUARD AND SUPERVISE
YOUR CHILDREN

Shores Big with Fair Form

SAN DIEGO BEACH AND WEATHER REPORT: TUES JAN 4, 9:30AM
(619) 221-8824

SKY: CLEAR WITH HAZE
AIR VISIBILITY: 10 MILES
BAROMETER: 30.26 IN.
WIND: 0-5 KNOTS FROM EAST
AIR TEMP: 57 F
WATER TEMP: 58 F

SURF CONDITIONS:
OCEAN BEACH - 3-5 FAIR
MISSION BEACH - 3-5 FAIR FORM
LA JOLLA REEFS - 8 FAIR
LA JOLLA SHORES - 8-9 FAIR TO POOR
SWELL WNW 8-10 SECOND INTERVALS

DIVING VISIBILITY: DIVING NOT ADVISED DUE TO SURF
LA JOLLA COVE - CLOSED
LA JOLLA SHORES - 10 VISIBILITY, MODERATE SURGE

MISSION BAY CHANNEL: CALM FOR NAVIGATION

TIDES:
LOW 5:54 AM, 2.1 FT.
HIGH 11:49 AM, 5.5 FT.
LOW 6:47 PM, 0.3 FT

CONTAMINATION:
AVOID WATER CONTACT FOR 72 HRS AFTER STORM CONDITIONS

SAFETY CONCERNS:
LA JOLLA SHORES BOAT LAUNCH, CLOSED DUE TO EROSION

MORE INFORMAION - SAN DIEGO COUNTY ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH (619) 338-2073
WHEN COMMING TO THE BEACH: ALWAYS SWIM NEAR A LIFEGUARD AND SUPERVISE
YOUR CHILDREN

Surfs Up, watch out for rain sickness

SAN DIEGO BEACH AND WEATHER REPORT: TUES JAN 3, 7AM
(619) 221-8824

SKY: CLEAR WITH HAZE
AIR VISIBILITY: 10 MILES
BAROMETER: 30.22 IN.
WIND: 5 KNOTS FROM EAST
AIR TEMP: 49 F
WATER TEMP: 58 F

SURF CONDITIONS:
OCEAN BEACH - 8+ POOR
MISSION BEACH - 4-6 POOR FORM
LA JOLLA REEFS - 8 FAIR
LA JOLLA SHORES - 4-5 FAIR TO POOR
SWELL WNW 8 SECOND INTERVALS

DIVING VISIBILITY: DIVING NOT ADVISED DUE TO SURF
LA JOLLA COVE - CLOSED
LA JOLLA SHORES - POOR 4-5 VISIBILITY, MODERATE SURGE

MISSION BAY CHANNEL: HAZARDOUS, SMALL BOAT WARNING

TIDES:
LOW 4:45 AM, 2.3 FT.
HIGH 10:53 AM, 6.3 FT.
LOW 6:02 PM, 1.0 FT

CONTAMINATION:
AVOID WATER CONTACT FOR 72 HRS AFTER STORM CONDITIONS

SAFETY CONCERNS:
OCEAN BEACH PIER IS CLOSED
LA JOLLA SHORES BOAT LAUNCH, CLOSED DUE TO EROSION

MORE INFORMAION - SAN DIEGO COUNTY ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH (619) 338-2073
WHEN COMMING TO THE BEACH: ALWAYS SWIM NEAR A LIFEGUARD AND SUPERVISE
YOUR CHILDREN

Happy New Year 2006 San Diego

SAN DIEGO BEACH AND WEATHER REPORT
(619) 221-8824

SKY: OVERCAST WITH RAIN AND FOG
AIR VISIBILITY: 1/4 MILE
BAROMETER: 30.00
WIND: 2 KNOTS FROM SOUTH
AIR TEMP: 59 F
WATER TEMP: 59 F

SURF CONDITIONS:
OCEAN BEACH - 4-7 POOR TO FAIR
MISSION BEACH - 3-5 POOR FORM
LA JOLLA REEFS - 1-3 POOR
LA JOLLA SHORES - 2-4 FAIR
SWELL WNW 10-12 SECOND INTERVALS

DIVING VISIBILITY: POOR
LA JOLLA COVE - 2 FEET, MODERATE SURGE
LA JOLLA SHORES - 10 FEET, MODERATE SURGE

MISSION BAY CHANNEL: ROUGH FOR NAVIGATION

TIDES:
LOW 3:51 PM, -1.8 FT.
HIGH 10:22 PM, 4 FT.

CONTAMINATION:
DOG BEACH GETTY TO 150 FEET SOUTH OF STUB GETTY

MORE INFORMAION - SAN DIEGO COUNTY ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH (619) 338-2073
WHEN COMMING TO THE BEACH: ALWAYS SWIM NEAR A LIFEGUARD AND SUPERVISE YOUR CHILDREN

San Diego Surf Blog

This will be the place to update the SD Surf Report each day online.
I'll just email in any new info: and the xml will update everone!