text:
Welcome to our weekly survey of the state of Our National Dialogue which, as you know, is what Beethover would have come up with had he composed Romance For Violins and Grubworms.
This week, a Very Special Episode of How We're Fked As A Species.
Centuries from now, when the several remaining humans are huddled around a dwindling fire and pondering how each of them will kill the others and eat their still-warm flesh, the most boring among the remnant will pose the question, "Who is to blame for all of this?" Someone will mention the Koch Brothers. Someone else will bring up BP, and maybe our old friend, the Keystone XL pipeline will get a moan-out while the silent one in the corner sizes up the available rocks and studies the heads of his companions. If I'm not around, I hope at least one of them will summon up his last remaining breath and say, "The noodlebrained bag of useless flesh named David Gregory," before collapsing in a heap in the corner, whence he will awaken an hour later to find one of his companions sizing up his quadriceps for a light snack.
Yesterday, and I am not exaggerating a bit here, David Gregory and the Meet The Press gang presented the definitive argument not only for their mutual expulsion from the company of sentient primates, but also the single best example of why the entire elite political class of this country is one day going to be subject to a massive class-action negligence suit on the part of whatever rodents are left. Let us stipulate from the outset -- among the people who actually know what they're talking about, there is no debate about climate change. None. It is occurring. Humans are exacerbating it at an unacceptable rate and, if something isn't done, beachfront property in Indianapolis one day is going to be at a premium. Neither political party has shown itself overly willing to confront this reality, but only one of them mocks the science and slanders the scientists. Having largely ignored the primary environmental issue of the past millennium, the Dancin' Master decides to take the bull by the ass and stage a "debate" between Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer turned television science guy, and Marsha Blackburn, a congresswoman from Tennessee with a BS from Mississippi State. The rodents are going to have a helluva case, I'm thinking.
It was every bit as grim as you can imagine. (In fact, it was such a grotesque mockery of a sham of a fraud that it has completely drowned out in my memory an appearance by Willard Romney, who was invited on to explain how his Salt Lake City Olympics rocked. Which is weird because I thought Wendy Davis was the only candidate in history who ever ran on her biography.) Congresswoman Blackburn, who reminded us that she wasn't a climate scientist, as if we couldn't have figured it out by ourselves, seemed most concerned about the fact that science is hard.
REP. BLACKBURN: You're exactly right. And what you have to do. Let's say everything that Bill says is wrong is wrong. Let's just say that. Then you say what are you going to do about it? What would the policy be? And will that policy have an impact? Now, even Director McCarthy from the EPA in answering questions from Congressman Pompeo before our committee, said reaching all of the 26 U.S. goals is not going to have an impact globally. And, David, what we have to look at is the fact that you don't make good laws, sustainable laws when you're making them on hypotheses or theories or unproven sciences.
Hypothesis. Theories. Unproven sciences.While England drowns and Australia burns and California dies of thirst.
And it is not at all unkind to point out that Ms. Blackburn and her colleagues in the House have declined pretty much to make any laws at all, sustainable or otherwise.
GREGORY: All right. We are going to leave it there. This debate goes on. I thank you for your time this morning, both of you.
But, as England drowns and Australia burns and California dies of thirst, they did not "leave it there." My man Chuck Todd chimed in, wistfully wishing that those noisy environmentalists would just tone it down a bit.
TODD:...The fact of the matter, it's happening. And I wonder if there's too much-- you know, I know some environmentalists are frustrated with that portion of the debate. But maybe you steer away from it and say, it doesn't matter. We have to tackle this infrastructure problem. You got to build different higher seawalls in some places. We're going to have to figure out a different way to distribute water in California. The fact of the matter-- and the Federal government is going to have to pay for this.
GREGORY: Right.
MR. TODD: And pay for all these things. And so I wonder if everybody should say, you know what? Let's table this debate. We know what's happening. Table that part of the debate because when you do that, then it becomes this like clubbing each other with-- with-- with political argument that takes away from what we have to do.
How, precisely, would this policy approach work? "We will spend a few billion to build state-of-the-art seawalls but we won't bother giving a reason for why we're doing it. We're going to rearrange radically the way 38 million people get their water and we'll be apolitically vague when people ask why they woke up one morning with a fking aqueduct in their backyard." Chuck Todd is welcome to try and sell this to a Republican party that believes science makes the baby Jeebus cry, as long as he leaves his dental records with someone so his remains can be identified. While England drowns and Australia burns and California dies of thirst.
Let us move along to another environmental brigand, Pat McCrory, the Republican governor of the newly insane state of North Carolina. He had a two-fer yesterday, appearing with both The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs, and with former Hoplite embed Bob Schieffer. His appearance on ABC is worth studying because of one phrase that did not appear anywhere in the dialogue. Say the secret words and win $500. It's a common phrase, one that's heard around North Carolina's watersheds all the time.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor McCrory, we're all seeing those pictures out of your state this week. It looks a little clearer this morning, but how much of this is going to set you back?
GOV. PAT MCCRORY, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: It's having a big impact. The last two weeks has been extremely stunning and tough on the state. It's not as tough as the first episode of House of Cards, but it's been very tough on all of us.Our budget is already at its maximum regarding snow removal and that doesn't include our cities and small towns. We literally had six major metropolitan areas hit with a major snow storm twice now in two weeks. And it's a hit on our budget. And it's going to be a hit on the economy because people haven't been spending money for the last four or five days.
MCCRORY: Well, I believe there is climate change. I'm not sure you can call it climate warming any more, especially here in the Carolinas. I think the big debate is how much of it is man-made and how much will just naturally happen, as the Earth evolves. And the question then is what do we do about it, and how much it will cost the consumer. I concentrate on cleaning the environment. I think that's where our argument should be, cleaning our air, cleaning our water and cleaning the ground. And we're at a brown fields area which we're in right now in Charlotte where we cleaned up the ground right here and cleaned up old brown fields and now we have great new development. But the whole issue of cleaning the environment I think is the issue we ought to talk about more than getting to a debate from the left and the right about climate change or global warming. It's all about cleaning our environment and have a good quality of life for not only now, but for future generations.
Holy Jesus H. Christ on a ventilator, George, COAL ASH! Ask him about the fking coal ash that Duke Energy loosed into the Dan River and then tried to whistle past the people of the state, an ongoing disaster in which McCrory himself is entangled because he used to work for Duke Energy. He's sitting right there, talking about "cleaning our environment" while his old company is fouling a river, and he's tap-dancing around what he knew, and nobody brings it up? The rodents's case is looking better and better.
And against all odds, Schieffer was even worse.
MCCRORY: I think someone took a -- chopped off the total sentence there, But I will say this, that, you know, I feel there has always been climate change. The debate is really how much of it is manmade and how much will it cost to have any impact on climate change. My main argument is let's clean up the environment. And as a mayor and now as a governor, I'm spending my time cleaning our air, cleaning our water and cleaning the ground. And I think that's where the argument should be on both the left and the right. And if that has an impact on climate change, good. But I think that's where the real argument should be, is doing what we can to clean up our environment. But we also have to look for cost-effective ways to do it because, as a governor, we're walking that fine line of keeping our environment clean but also continuing the economic recovery and making sure things like power are affordable for the consumer.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Governor, we want to wish you and the folks down there in North Carolina the very best.
Especially the people around the Dan River who will be dining on three-headed trout for a decade. While England drowns, and Australia burns, and Califiornia dies of thirst...
Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976. He lives near Boston and has three children.


text:
Estella Crystals are good quality lead free glass-cut crystals, which are sourced globally and finished in the United Kingdom. Estella Crystals offer excellent levels of brilliance and sparkle, at an affordable price.
Estella Flatback Crystals (Hotfix) in Amethyst are available in many sizes and can be purchased in retail or wholesale packs. They come with a reverse side that has been pre-coated with a heat-sensitive glueand can easily be applied to materials using an iron (steam turned off) or hotfix applicator.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welly well well, here we are on another Oscar nominations eve, so, without further ado (other than the poster image of 12 Years a Slave, that is), here are my final, and as the post's title says, set-in-stone, Oscar nomination predictions. Have at 'em. Oh, and I have listed them in order of probability within each category.
1. 12 Years a Slave
2. American Hustle
3. Gravity
4. Captain Phillips
5. The Wolf of Wall Street
6. Nebraska
7. Dallas Buyers Club
8. Her
9. Philomena
10. Saving Mr. Banks
Wild Cards: Blue Jasmine and/or Inside Llewyn Davis (Yeah, right - but I guy can dream)
The first three here are pretty much locks, and the next three are pretty darn as close to locks as they can be. Now since we don't know just how many nominees we will see in this category, as the rules claim anywhere between five and ten (a rule with which this critic is not all too fond), who knows what tomorrow morning will bring. My guess though, is eight, but if it does go to ten, there ya have it. Other (slim) possibilities are Before Midnight, Fruitvale Station, The Butler, and even Blue is the Warmest Color, if hell freezes over.
Best Director
1. Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity
2. Steve McQueen for 12 Years a Slave
3. David O. Russell for American Hustle
4. Martin Scorsese for The Wolf of Wall Street
5. Paul Greengrass for Captain Phillips
Possible Spoilers: Alexander Payne for Nebraska and/or Spike Jonze for Her
Wild Cards: The Coen Brothers for Inside Llewyn Davis
The first three are locks here, with Cuaron the frontrunner to win then gold (another split between director and picture is likely again this year). Scorsese is likely but not a sure thing. Greengrass is a bit on the wobbly side here, with either Payne or Jonze (or maybe even both!) on the ready to (semi)surprise tomorrow morn. A real surprise (and a welcome one) would be a nod for the Coens. Who knows.
1. Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club
2. Chiwetel Ojiofor in 12 Years a Slave
3. Bruce Dern in Nebraska
4. Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street
5. Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips
Possible Spoilers: Robert Redford in All is Lost and/or Joaquin Phoenix in Her
Wild Card: Christian Bale in American Hustle or Forrest Whitaker in The Butler
Wow, just think, a guy who was the frontrunner to win the statue a month or so ago, may now, not even get nominated. The top three are locks, with McConaughey in the hot seat to win in March, but the next two are a bit shaky. Redford was the frontrunner, but with Leo buzzing up a storm, it seems unlikely he'll be left out, and Redford is the most likely culprit to end up not having his name announced tomorrow. Of course, I could be wrong - imagine that. Perhaps the Leo buzz came to late to affect the outcome, and Redford's once vaulted slot is safe after all. Phoenix could just as easily slip in there as well, but less likely.
Wow, just think, a guy who was the frontrunner to win the statue a month or so ago, may now, not even get nominated. The top three are locks, with McConaughey in the hot seat to win in March, but the next two are a bit shaky. Redford was the frontrunner, but with Leo buzzing up a storm, it seems unlikely he'll be left out, and Redford is the most likely culprit to end up not having his name announced tomorrow. Of course, I could be wrong - imagine that. Perhaps the Leo buzz came to late to affect the outcome, and Redford's once vaulted slot is safe after all. Phoenix could just as easily slip in there as well, but less likely.
Best Actress
1. Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine
2. Amy Adams in American Hustle
3. Sandra Bullock in Gravity
4. Emma Thompson in Saving Mr. Banks
5. Judi Dench in Philomena
Possible Spoiler: Meryl Streep in August: Osage County
Wild Card: Adele Exarchopoulos in Blue is the Warmest Color
What!!? Streep not getting nominated!? What am I, a fool!? Yeah, well maybe I am, but with a sudden surge in buzz for Amy Adams, someone had to get knocked off the list, and La Streep is the injured party. Otherwise, this seems a pretty tight race.
Best Supporting Actor
1. Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club
2. Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave
3. Barkhad Abdi in Captain Phillips
4. Bradley Cooper in American Hustle
5. Jonah Hill in The Wolf of Wall Street
Possible Spoilers: Daniel Bruhl in Rush and/or Tom Hanks in Saving Mr. Banks.
Wild Card: James Gandolfini in Enough Said
Again, the top three are sure-fire locks. Numbers four and five, a bit more on the shaky side of things. For a while, it looked as if Mr. Hanks might be a double nominee this year, but the buzz on Saving Mr. Banks, save for the lead performance of Miss Thompson, has pretty much taken the proverbial long walk off of a short pier. That, along with the surge of both Hill and Cooper in this race, gives us our top five, but don't be too surprised if Herr Bruhl sneaks in there somewhere. And let's not forget Oscar's reverence for the dead, and the, albeit slim, possibility of the late Mr. Gandolfini popping up as well.
1. Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle
2. Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave
3. June Squibb in Nebraska
4. Oprah Winfrey in Lee Daniels' The Butler
5. Sally Hawkins in Blue Jasmine
Possible Spoiler: Julia Roberts in August: Osage County
Wild Card: Octavia Spencer in Fruitvale Station
Again, the top three are locks. After that, it's pretty much a free-for-all. If Oprah is nominated, she may very well win, but it's still debatable if she will be nominated (and if she's not, then maybe we'll see back-to-back Oscars for J-Law). As for the fifth spot, conventional wisdom goes to picking Julia Roberts, but if Streep is snubbed (as is my prediction above) then perhaps the whole film will be, leaving the spot open for one of my faves of the year, one Miss Sally Hawkins. Then again, there tends to be a big surprise somewhere in the acting categories, and perhaps our wild card Spencer is just that surprise.
1. American Hustle
2. Inside Llewyn Davis
3. Nebraska
4. Her
5. Blue Jasmine
Best Adapted Screenplay
1. 12 Years a Slave
2. Captain Phillips
3. Philomena
4. Before Midnight
5. The Wolf of Wall Street
The screenplay nods seem pretty firm right about now, which is kind of unusual, so there is bound to be a surprise or two in here somewhere Possibles surprises for Original are: Saving Mr. Banks, Lee Daniels' The Butler, Frances Ha, Dallas Buyers Club, Fruitvale Station. Others for Adapted are: August: Osage County, Blue is the Warmest Color, and The Spectacular Now. So there ya go.
Well, that's about it for now. I'll let the other categories go for now (though I'm sure the 3D spectacle, Gravity, will be up for most of the tech awards, just as Life of Pi did last year). All-in-all, I think American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Captain Philips, and Gravity are the films destined to lead the nominations, and maybe The Wolf of Wall Street, if that pans out. We'll see tomorrow morning, and I'll have a wrap-up of the nods, as well as my stats in the ole predicting game. See ya 'round the web.


text:
If you want to contact us about the European Youth Portal for any reason, please click on the "Questions?" link at the top of this page. When you complete the form, it will be sent to the Eurodesk organisation in the country related to your question or comment. They aim to reply within three working days, so if you do not get a response within that time then please contact them again, just in case there was a technical problem.
You can also contact the Europe Direct central information service. They can offer:
- an immediate answer to general questions related to the EU
- directions to the best sources of information/advice and contact details (at EU, national or local level)
- information on your rights and opportunities as an EU citizen and how to exercise them (getting a residence permit or your qualifications recognised in another EU country, how to complain about unsafe products, etc.)
- more specialised information (if necessary)
- free postal delivery of certain EU publications
You can contact them by telephone on 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 from anywhere within the EU*, or on +32 (0)2 299 96 96 (standard telephone charges apply.) Lines are open on weekdays from 0900 to 1800 (CET), and you can speak to them in any official EU language.
You can also contact them by email, by web chat, or through a Europe Direct centre in your country – the Europe Direct webpage has all the information (see link at bottom of page).
*Some mobile phone or alternative operators do not grant access to 00 800 numbers or may make a minimum charge. Also, calls may be chargeable from telephone boxes or hostels / hotels.
Related links
European Youth Portal "Questions?"


text:
Super Simple Squares
Deer Valley Collection
Quiltmaker: Jennifer Keltner
Deer Valley collection by Joel Dewberry for FreeSpirit.
Red Letter Day Collection
Quiltmaker: Jill Abeloe Mead
Red Letter Day collection by Lizzie House for Andover Fabrics.
Bridgewater Collection
Quiltmaker: Mary Helen Schiltz
Bridgewater collection for Camelot Cottons.
50 States Collection
Quiltmaker: Elizabeth Tisinger
50 States collection by Krista Hamrick for Blank Quilting.
Kingyo and Tokyo Collections
Quiltmaker: Mary Irish
Kingyo and Tokyo collections for Red Rooster Fabrics.
Happy Campers Collection
Project Maker: Jody Sanders
Happy Campers collection by American Jane for Moda Fabrics.
Lantern Bloom Collection
Quiltmaker: Deb Gore Ohrn
Lantern Bloom collection by Laura Gunn for Michael Miller Fabrics.
Flutter by Two Friends Collection
Transit Town Collection
Quiltmaker: Elizabeth Tisinger
Transit Town collection for Timeless Treasures Fabrics.
Toys … Toys … Toys Collection
Rhumba Collection
Quiltmaker: Bethany Peterson
Rhumba collection by Rosemarie Lavin for Windham Fabrics.
Hoffman Fabrics Collections
Quiltmaker: Jody Sanders
Winter in Bloom, Enchanted Winter, Venetian Holiday, YuletideTraditions, and Holiday Lane collections for Hoffman Fabrics.
European Taupe and Matsuda-wa Collections
Quiltmaker: Georgia Roorda
European Taupe and Matsuda-wa collections by Kinkame for Clothworks.
Floragraphix IV Collection
Quiltmaker: Karman Hotchkiss
Floragraphix IV collection by Jason Yenter for In the Beginning Fabrics.
High Definition
Quiltmaker: Nancy Wiles
High Definition by Faye Burgos for Marcus Fabrics.
Safari So Good
Quiltmaker: Mary Irish
Safari So Good for P&B Textiles.
Deco Park Collection
Quiltmaker: Jill Abeloe Mead
Deco Park collection by Robin Pickens for Robert Kaufman Fabrics.
Somerset Cottage Collection
Quiltmaker: Jill Abeloe Mead
Somerset Cottage collection by Robyn Pandolph for RJR Fabrics.
Inspiration Collection
Quiltmaker: Elizabeth Tisinger
Inspiration collection Linda Lum DeBono for Henry Glass & Co.
Belle Fleur Collection
Aqua Terra Collection
Quiltmaker: Jill Abeloe Mead
Aqua Terra collection by Isadora Phoeniz for Connecting Threads.
Sport Collection
Quiltmaker: Lisa Schumacher
Sport collection for Timeless Treasures Fabrics (with T-shirt squares added).
Berry Delicious Collection
Quiltmaker: Celia Mathieu
Berry Delicious collection by Sew Treasured for Moda Fabrics.
Worn and Loved Collection
Quiltmaker: Jennifer Keltner
Worn and Loved collection by Jeanne Horton for Windham Fabrics.
Lulu Collection
Quiltmaker: Emma Akerly
Lulu Collection by Sisters Gulassa for Camelot Cottons.
Sweet Pea
Quiltmaker: Jill Abeloe Mead
Sweet Pea by Karen Snyder for Timeless Treasures Fabrics.
Glow Collection
Quiltmaker: Lisa Schumacher
Glow collection by Gudrun Erla for Red Rooster Fabrics.
Vienna Collection
Quiltmaker: Mary Helen Schiltz
Vienna collection by Timeless Treasures Fabrics.
Hushabye Collection
Quiltmaker: Elizabeth Stumbo
Hushabye collection by Tula Pink for Moda Fabrics.
Have a Sherry Berry Holiday Collection
Quiltmaker: Jody Sanders
Have a Sherry Berry Holiday collection by Sherry Berry for Northcott.
Masquerade by HG Collection
Quiltmaker: Maria Schwamman
Masquerade by HG collection for Henry Glass & Co.
Valley Forge 1860-1880 Collection
Quiltmaker: Diane Mason
Valley Forge 1860-1880 collection by Nancy Gere for Windham Fabrics.
Spring Fever Collection
Quiltmaker: Bethany Peterson
Spring Fever collection by Hoodie for Blank Quilting.
Apple Collection
Quiltmaker: Elizabeth Stumbo
Apple collection by Alice Kennedy for Timeless Treasures Fabrics.
Abbey Road Collection
Holiday 2009 Collection
Quiltmaker: Jennifer Keltner
Holiday 2009 collection by Timeless Treasures Fabrics.
Valley Forge 1860-1880 Collection
Quiltmaker: Jody Sanders
Valley Forge 1860-1880 collection by Nancy Gere for Windham Fabrics.
Sparkling Paris Collection
Quiltmaker: Jennifer Samuels
Sparkling Paris collection by Hoodie for Blank Quilting.
Bridgewater Collection
Quiltmaker: Nancy Wiles
Bridgewater collection for Camelot Cottons.
Download the free quilt pattern for Super Simple Squares.


text:
Avaya engineers are putting the final touches on a network capable of handling up to 54Tbps of traffic when the Winter Olympics opens on 7th February in the Russian city of Sochi.
In addition to investing in a telecom infrastructure, Russia is spending billions of dollars to upgrade Sochi's electric power grid, its transportation system and even its sewage treatment facilities.
The two locations where the Olympics will take place – the Olympic village in Sochi and a tight cluster of Alpine venues in the nearby Krasnaya Polyana Mountains – are completely new, so this project represents a greenfield environment for Avaya.
"The whole town is nothing but a constantly changing, $50 billion construction site; for instance we've seen the road outside our hotel be torn up at least four times. As for modern IT infrastructure?" said Dean Frohwerk, Chief Network Architect, Avaya. "There was none to speak of. We have really had to start from scratch, right down to the laying of conduit before we could even begin installing fiber and cabling."
Quite a contrast from 2010, when Frohwerk and his team provided telecom and networking services for the games in Vancouver.
This time around, the demands for bandwidth and connectivity dwarf anything that Avaya delivered in Vancouver, where the network was capable of handling only 4Tbps.
Sochi itself is a sprawling city of 350,000 people located on the Black Sea. Archeologists have found human remains in the area that date back tens of thousands of years. Today, Sochi's subtropical climate makes it a popular Russian tourist spot.
The Sochi network will serve 30,000 athletes, administrators and staff, media, IOC officials, and volunteers with data, voice, video, and full Internet access through the Games sites.
"We expect these people to be carrying and using multiple wireless devices," said Frohwerk. "In Vancouver, we only had to provision one device per user. This means that we really have to have the capability to support up to 120,000 users on the Sochi Wi-Fi network, without issues or interruptions."
Plus, Avaya has to deliver 30 IPTV dedicated HD Olympic channels via its telecom backbone, and has to make these channels available to Olympic family users over the converged network. IPTV support is an Olympic first on the network, eliminating the need for a separate CATV HFC network.
Network upgrade
In Vancouver, Avaya installed the first all-IP converged voice, data and video network at Layer 2. "That network was laid out like a single mammoth installation, which worked well given that wired traffic outnumbered wireless four to one," said Frohwerk.
"But we expect this equation to turn on its head at Sochi, with wireless being the four and wired traffic being the one. That's why we have had to change our approach."
Another lesson from Vancouver, he said, is that "requirements evolve and change during the Games, and that you have to be able to adapt the network configuration to accommodate these changes. We have also seen that ease of use is paramount: With so much going on, network operators must find it simple to make changes on the fly."
Avaya's Sochi Wi-Fi network will be split into five virtual SSID-based networks. There will be one network for the athletes, two for media (one free, one paid), one for Olympics staff, and one for dignitaries.
Each group will have its own access password, and extra layers of password protection will be added where needed. The Wi-Fi traffic will be distributed using about 2,000 802.11n access points across the Olympics Game sites; including inside the stands for the first time.
The network will be headquartered in a primary Technical Operations Center (TOC) in the coastal city of Adler, alongside the Primary data centre. The secondary TOC and data centre will be at the Sochi Olympic Park, located 10 miles northwest at the Games site.
Each TOC will be in a 50-foot by 70-foot control room. While one TOC is in use, the other will be kept in standby mode by a skeleton crew. Each TOC will be connected to the outside world by 10GB pipelines provided by Rostelecom, Russia's national telecom operator.
"We have built the TOCs in separate locations to ensure redundancy in the case of a natural disaster or man-made incident," says Frohwerk. "Should the Adler TOC go down, we would simply send the next shift to the Sochi TOC and carry on."
The data and voice backbone is built on Avaya's Fabric Connect, an open virtualisation platform based on IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging that enables a network fabric within/between data centres and the sites they serve.
At the core of the network are four Virtual Enterprise Network Architecture (VENA)-enabled Virtual Service Platform (VSP) 9000 switches, one in each TOC and one more in each of the mountain cluster points of presences.
Using Avaya ERS 8800 switches located at the network's edge, the whole Sochi network will be virtualised at Layer 3 instead of Layer 2.
"Using a Layer 3 virtual software layer means that our switches can act intelligently locally, and do a better job of routing traffic," Frohwerk said. "This reduces traffic jams, which means more uptime and better network speeds. It's a step up from what we did in Vancouver, because the demands we're facing are so much bigger here."
Using Layer 3 will let Avaya's network operators serve many more endpoints than they could in Vancouver. Each device logging in will get its own media access control address: Avaya will use pre-installed 802.1X certificates, the MAC address, or a captive portal to authenticate the device, while controlling the access level and bandwidth with the company's Identity Engines software.
Avaya is also providing voice services and 6,500 voicemail boxes at Sochi using Avaya Aura Communication Manager (CM), Session Manager (SM), System Manager (SYMGR) and CM Messaging.
Moving goods into Russia can be time-consuming in the best of situations. But moving massive amounts of equipment in time for the Games has been a real challenge for Avaya.
"This is why we have had people in Sochi for the past 18 months, to keep things coordinated and to make sure supplies get where they need to be," Frohwerk said. "You can't leave things to chance."
Another major obstacle is training. In line with their agreement with Avaya's Russian partners, the company is training 170 Russian technicians to provide Tier 1 and Tier 2 network support during the Games. A 30-person team from Avaya Global Support Services will provide Tier 3/4 support from Sochi's TOC, supported by Avaya R&D staff around the world.
The training of these Russian technicians is under way and Avaya staff has rotated on site to "train" for the Olympics.
"We are doing our best to be well-prepared for whatever the Games throw at us," Frohwerk said. Avaya's outdoor systems are designed to handle extreme weather; "We're not worried if it snows," he says. "In fact, we hope it does, because these are the Winter Games, after all."
Apres ski
After the games end on Feb 23, much of Avaya's infrastructure will be removed. But the telecom facilities it has built for the Games – including the telephone and IP networking for the Olympics skiing venue in the Caucasus, where a new resort town is being erected, will remain.
The company will also be helping to develop telecom facilities for the Grand Prix auto races that will held in Sochi later in 2014, and football matches there that will be part of the 2018 World Cup.
"We will be leaving behind quite a legacy telecom system when we leave Sochi," says Frohwerk.


text:
Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation
Posted by Walter Olson
There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor's race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat's reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the "dirtiest, nastiest political player out there," which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today's ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett's famous 2008 Village Voice article.)
I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it's also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn't much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the "next tobacco," following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).
Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they'd fold their hands and yield to "gun control through litigation" (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.
Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they'd suffer "death by a thousand cuts." And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: "If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door."
I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can't figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.
Tags: Cato Institute, Cuomo, election 2010, Gun Control, News, Politics, Spitizer


text:
Intel and VMware announced today that Intel Capital is taking a $218.5 million stake in virtualization company VMWare. Intel will purchase 9.5 million Class A shares at $23 per share, which, at the completion of VMware's forthcoming IPO, will give Intel about a 2.5 percent stake in the company. Because VMware's stock is split between Class A shares, which have less voting power, and Class B shares, Intel won't control that many votes in the company, but they will get a board seat.
There are a few good reasons for Intel to get on board the VMware train right now, even if Microsoft is currently gearing up to wreck that train if it can. (More on the Microsoft angle in a moment, though.) First, VMware is currently the market leader in virtualization, especially when it comes to all-important enterprise-level management functionality. Second, VMware is gearing up for what will probably be a successful IPO, given their prominent position in this hot space and given current market conditions. So it's a good bet that Intel will make money off of the VMware IPO. Third, Intel has much to gain by seeing any x86 virtualization vendor succeed, because the chipmaker will sell most of the hardware to make the virtualization market go regardless of who wins on the software side. So an investment in VMware is an investment in growing a vital market for Intel.
All of these reasons, along with the aforementioned board seat, were probably factors in Intel's decision to invest in VMware. The question that remains is this: what happens when Microsoft not only matches VMware's management functionality but integrates their entire virtualization solution seamlessly into Windows?
A shift in the market
A while back, I got about 3,000 words into a long tech feature on virtualization before realizing that a) it's nearly impossible to come up with a taxonomy of virtualization solutions that is fine-grained enough to be meaningful, yet abstract enough to be useful (this is because x86 virtualization is in a class by itself, and even if I just stuck to x86 I'd wind up writing a series of "how it works" pieces on specific vendors' packages), and b) actual low-level implementation differences don't matter nearly as much today as they did before VT-x went mainstream with the Core 2 Duo.
Right now, the virtualization market is just starting to mature out of the phase where different vendors pit their core virtualization technologies against each other. How to build a good x86 hypervisor, especially in the wake of Intel's VT extensions, is pretty much a solved problem, so the days when virtualization vendors would argue over the relative performance advantages of this or that low-level implementation are nearly over. Good x86 hypervisors are no longer a novelty item, thanks mainly to VMware, which initially showed everyone that it could be done well.
Today's virtualization scene is about enterprise-level management tools, and in this arena VMware is the reigning champ. But Microsoft has made it clear that they intend to compete with VMware in the virtualization space, and that they also intend to build the relevant management functionality into Windows.
Microsoft will eventually rework their entire Windows product line, from consumer editions up to server editions, to include virtualization (and the management of virtualized resources) as a core operating system capability. When this happens, it's very likely that the only Windows-based virtualization solution that any Microsoft shop will consider is the default one that ships with Windows. At this point, VMware had better hope that XenSource hasn't caught up with them on Linux, because Linux will be the only place where VMware will have a prayer.


text:
I've been madly craving brownies lately… and it has come to a point where shelling out $2-$4 each time I'm craving a brownie became ridiculous and I decided to take my cravings into my own hands. Introducing, the Mexican Chocolate Brownies. They're Mexican because they are spicy. Mexican hot chocolate is known to include cinnamon… hence these brownies' nomenclature.
The recipe called for chili powder or cayenne, which I didn't have. I had some bird's eye chili (or chilli padi, as we Singaporeans like to call them) and since it is ferociously spicy by most standards, I decided to just mix in the seeds from one chili for a 9 x 5 dish. It didn't turn out very spicy at all, which I was disappointed by. However, the texture was delightfully fudgy and if you wanted a fudgy brownie, these definitely make the cut. If I were to make this again, I'd try to make sure I have all the ingredients before embarking on the recipe. Or just put in more chili seeds. The spicier, the better. Maybe next time I'd even try including Taza's Guajillo Chili chocolate, which is probably one of the few chocolates I would happily nibble on all by itself. (Other chocolates I would do that to include Trader Joe's Pound Plus semisweet for its good value and versatility and Vosges Chocolate for its variety. I would welcome a bar of either for my birthday, thank you very much.)
Mexican Chocolate Brownies
Adapted from Baking Bites
Makes one 9 x 5 pan
1/4 cup butter
1-oz bittersweet or dark chocolate, chopped
1 tbsp cocoa powder
1/2 cup sugar
1 large egg
1/2 tsp vanilla extract
1/3 cup flour
1/2 tsp ground cinnamon
1/6 tsp ground cayenne pepper
1/8 tsp chili powder
1/8 tsp salt
1/3 cup chocolate chips (pref. semisweet or bittersweet)
Preheat oven to 350F. Line a 9×5 baking pan with aluminum foil and lightly grease.
In a small, heatproof bowl, melt butter and chocolate together. Stir with a fork until very smooth. Stir in cocoa powder until fully incorporated. Set aside to cool slightly.
In a large bowl, whisk together sugar, egg and vanilla extract. Whisking steadily, pour chocolate mixture into sugar mixture. Stir until smooth. Sift flour, ground cinnamon, cayenne pepper, chili powder and salt into the bowl and stir until just combined. Fold in chocolate chips.
Pour into prepared pan and spread into an even layer.
Bake for about 20-25 minutes, until brownies set and a toothpick inserted into the middle of the pan comes out with only a few moist crumbs, not batter, attached.
Cool in the pan completely before slicing.


text:
Diesel and Donna
My day began as many others do. The morning was a bit cooler. I cannot say I am sorry ,as recently, the hot weather has taken a toll on my energy level.
It was a day of a routine schedule. Nothing exasperating, nothing remarkable , until I saw a statuesque young woman, with blonde hair, walking her dog. He was a fairly large, very black dog. They moved slowly together.
We passed and I said hello . I mentioned her dog limping….thinking perhaps the dog had twisted an ankle.
My Axel Bear, a Rottweiler, often charges across the yard to chase the sounds along the fence-line. In doing so, sometimes he twists his paw. One time he tore both ACL joints and was in severe pain. But that is another story……
She said her boy was eleven and had arthritis. I have some arthritis so I know how painful it is. I can voice my pain All a dog is able to do is limp, or pant, or sometimes voice an occasional whimper. All the owner can do for his or her beloved dog, is attend to the business of caring for the animal, when these things become obvious.
This afternoon I saw this patient and kind – lovely woman, walking her dog again. I watched her for a few minutes.
She was in pace with the animal in pain. She never hurried the dog or got impatient. She just lovingly stood as he looked around, sniffed the air, and decided when it was time to walk a few steps further.
It was genuinely an amazing sight to see. In recent days, I have read about dog owners giving their dog away when they get old…taking them to the dog pound, or trying to sell them saying,"We just moved and we cannot have a dog." It makes me FUME!
When we accept the unconditional love of the greatest friend human beings have – a dog – we need to not only feed and care for them through out their young and vibrant years; we need to fulfill our commitment, as we would with a child, during those more difficult and painful years. We should not dump them because they need more care and perhaps medical help…or because we are fearful to see them wither on the vine and pass away.
As I watched these "friends" walking past, I could not help but ask what their names are. The young woman said, "This is Diesel and I am Donna.
I asked if I might write a bit about them, and though taken by surprise, she said it was alright.
I wanted to tell this LOVE STORY between a young blonde woman, and a very black older dog. The love was obvious. The patience and care was beautiful, and it touched my heart deeply!
If only everyone who accepted all that a dog has to offer, would fulfill a dog's life, as this woman is obviously doing, it would be miraculous.
Bless them both. When the time comes for separation, I know, and believe with ALL my heart – God would never give us such a gift only to end the Spirit forever.
I believe Diesel will be playing, pain free, at the Rainbow bridge, and waiting with kisses and love in his heart, for his Donna!


text:
The Delta B3596LF is part of the Windemere Collection that features a rich tough Chrome finish that looks good in any Bathroom. The 1.5 GPM Bathroom faucet comes with 2 handle levers for both the hot and cold water supplies. The handles are designed for 1/4 turn stops. The Spout is a fancy high-arc that will cover a large sink area. The Delta B3596LF is featured in Chrome but one can also find this in a Oil Rubbed Bronze and a Stainless finish. The Windemere collection by Delta are made to last. Delta's Eco Friendly faucets gives you the benefits of conserving water while at the same time it feels like you are using more when you are not. This aids in saving your hot water supply which in turn will help lower the overall heating costs. The Delta B3596LF is remarkable not only for the sleek stylish design but for the great quality and workmanship that they have put into this great collection. Delta continues to astonish in both craftsmanship and design, they truly believe that durability and unique looks are a must for any home.
|Number of Handles:
|Two Handle
|Product Collection:
|Bathroom Faucet Type:
|Bathroom Sink Faucet
|Mpn #
|Shipping Dimensions
|13.5" x 10.5" x 2.9"
|5.26 lbs.


text:
Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.
By CNN's Wolf Blitzer
(CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is making it clear that he doesn't think there's a whole lot of difference on the most important issues between his rival Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.
"Would there be a change in foreign policy?" Paul asked during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "No, there would not be."
He then insisted that there was really no difference between Romney and Obama on entitlement spending, auditing the Federal Reserve and cutting the nation's debt.
"No," Paul insisted. "There would not be a significant difference between the two – although on the edges, maybe. … So, no, the regulatory system, the spending, the deficits, the printing of money, they stay the same."
When I heard that, I again wondered what the Republican congressman from Texas would do if Romney won the Republican nomination. Would he jump on the Romney bandwagon, or would he run as a third-party candidate?
Earlier in the month, I asked Paul whether he could support Romney if he won the nomination.
He replied that none of the Republican candidates was advocating his positions. "So I would have to find out exactly what their positions are and what the platform is that they would be running on," he said.
I pressed and asked whether it were possible that he would run as a third-party candidate – which he did in 1988, when he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. "I haven't thought about it, and I have no plans to do that," he said. "So, no, that wouldn't be in the cards for me."
I believe Paul. I don't think he's spent a lot of time thinking about that third-party contingency. He is focused now on winning the nomination.
But it certainly would be intriguing if Romney did win the nomination and Paul decided to challenge both him and Obama for the presidency.
Would Paul take more votes away from the Republican or Democratic candidate?
Since he's a Republican, the immediate assumption is that he would hurt the Republican nominee and maybe even ensure Obama's re-election.
But you could make a case that Paul also appeals to many isolationist and deficit-cutting Democrats who are deeply worried about Obama's economic policies.
It's all very hypothetical but still a fascinating topic for political junkies like me to ponder.
RELATED: Ron Paul says unemployment is 20%
If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination I hope he runs independent and may get my vote even if he doesn't. This is his last chance at the presidency and the best chance our country has right now to make a turn in the right direction. We know who the Democrats are bringing, and the other Republicans running are only shades off of Obama. Either way we'll have massive spending for foreign affairs and little hope for real cuts in federal spending, continuing down the path to economic collapse.
Can't handle the truth wolf?
Man Up !
Ron Paul or bust!
The Only Real Change is Ron Paul...he makes the most sense....along with integrity...just visit http://www.ronpaul2012.com and see the truth and not the slanted news media view point...putting more money back into Americans hands and bringing troops home to defend OUR Country...and remember Ron Paul was the one who helped push through going after Osama bin laden but he said do it Now and not cost the taxpayers any more money...now look at the mess we are in with the present regime...and they are all the same...except Ron Paul who really loves America and the Freedom it stands for...Vote for Ron Paul....YES!
In 2008 RP said he would NOT run as an independent (and he didn't), and I don't this cycle being any different. With that said, if RP loses the primary, I will consider this Presidential race to be over as who wins will simply not matter.
He might as well run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination, because he is the only guy myself and all the other Ron Paul supporters will vote for no matter what. There is no other candidate-Democrat, Republican, or Independent-that I will vote for this election cycle. The reason so many of us have become diehard Ron Paul supporters is because we realize he is the only candidate that grasps the severity of the monetary, debt, and financial crisis we are in, and he is the only candidate serious about trying to fix them.
This 3rd PARTY crap is pure propaganda. you guys tried this trick in 2008 and its not gonna work. Ron Paul is a 12 term congressman, he worked with Ronald Reagan and he is taking the republican party back to its roots. Wolf, you are a clown.
Age is just a number. The man has the egreny of someone twenty years younger than him though. I've seen pictures of Paul riding a bike on a twelve mile ride. Hardly the activity of someone of who you would expect is too old or is dying.And the just for record, I've seen him shirtless in a pool with his great grand daughter and he looked pretty damn fit to me and I'm 23.Could he die while in office? Of course but so could Obama or any other candidate so the age argument is ridiculous and especially in this case.
This is an interesting question, although I do not agree that Ron Paul is an "isolationist." He believes the role of government is to protect the liberty of it's citizens. If that means going to war, he will go to war. If that means offering letters of marque to bring suspected terrorist suspects to justice, so be it. Just because he does not endorse the empire mentality of endless war and does not ignore collateral damage (the killing of thousands of innocent women and children) as being in the best interest of U.S. liberty, does not make him an isolationist.
This is an interesting question though, although it would not be preferable for RP to lose the Republican nomination because the two parties do everything in their power to exclude third parties, including the MSM they have in their back pocket who cannot seem to comprehend the possibility of anything unlikely happening in politics and seem more hell bent on predicting the winner (or should I say selecting the winner) than they do on offering honest unbiased insights into each candidates positions and allowing equal time to all candidates.
But in any case, I think Wolf makes a good point that Ron Paul definitely appeals to many liberals and republicans and I don't think their is a lesser of two evils with respect to Romney vs. Obama. So I say, if RP doesn't win the Republican nomination...heck yes...bring on the third party...preferably libertarian just because they would probably have the least amount of trouble getting on the ballot in all 50 states and have some existing infrastructure at least.
Equal time to all candidates is not realistic or even desirable, but time in proportion to standing in the polls would be a heck of a lot better than Ron Paul is getting right now.
We can only hope he does run as a 3rd party candidate.
It would be nice to have a real choice for once.
Hillary Clinton: We must isolate Iran from the international community. Ron Paul: We need to talk and trade with Iran. Mainstream Media: Ron Paul is an isolationist.
There you again, Wolf. There you go again. Please stop pretending that you can predict the future. Please allow the people of the US to know and freely elect their own leaders. You can do this by asking intelligent questions about each candidate's positions. You can give them all equal time.
You can do this, Wolf. But instead, you ask silly questions of a Presidential Candidate like: "If you don't win, who of your competitors would you support?"
You can be better than that, Wolf. You can serve the highest interests of the people of this country.
I have a feeling if he does run independently, he will win and they will just fix the election. He is really the only choice, I can easily see him beating both the established parties combined especially if voter turnout spiked near 100%. Remember only about 30% vote on average, because 70% of the country thinks the two parties are the same anyway (they are). What happens at 100%? You get pretty much 70% in favor of the alternative.
Why would he run as a third party candidate when he will be the Republican nominee???
RON PAUL 2012 Check out his plan to restore America including a detailed financial plan at ronpaul2012.com
You can be assured that if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, that the Ron Paul supporters will not be voting for any other Republican presidential nominee or Obama. They will either vote third party or write him in. The latter is what I plan to do if Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee!
It is historic that this video was poetsd. It is a testament to the absolute lie that the Tea Party started wth anyone besides Ron Paul supporters. The republicans laughed him off the stage at their debates. The democrats knew he was telling the truth but maintained their party lines. He drew free thinkers from all the parties to a movement. And now its been hijacked! Historic Post. For OUR FREEDOM
Will Ron Paul run third party if Romney, Cain or Perry get the nod?
I sure do hope so!
He's the ONLY Republican candidate I will vote for.
Ron Paul is the only candidate I will vote for. If the Republicans want to continue supporting Romneycare, Jethro I mean Perry and the nines of Cain, well they can kiss this election goodbye and see four more years of the same old.
If the Republican Party really wants to focus on the economy and jobs they better start backing Dr. Paul NOW, his economic plan is the only one that will make the much needed cuts to get our country back on track.
Hope to vote for Ron Paul AS the republican candidate, if not will write him in.
As a Canadian looking in on your elections and not being partial to any party i can say that Ron Paul knows what it takes to fix your country. People may not like what has to be done but a solution is needed now so you don't end up like Greece later. All the other candidates don't get the severity of the problem.
This is a familiar discussion in Ron Paul circles...
But for the addition of the inapplicable "isolationist" label, this is a valid pondering of the current state of affairs.
Ron Paul, not seeking a House reelction, would conceivably have nothing to lose by running third party in the event of another nominee, all of whom he has rejected as good alternatives for one reason or another.
I think the best the Republican Party should hope for here is a Ron Paul nomination. He is the only candidate with the moral high ground to challenge Obama on all the issues.
Why do we keep hearing that Ron Paul can't get into the debates as an independent? John Anderson and Ross Perot were both able to and weren't those debates much more interesting and informing. It is usually based on polling numbers that Dr. Paul should be able to achieve. I say if he does not get the Republican Party nod, he HAS to go independent – to keep the rEVOLution going! What is there to lose? We would support him.
Just because of all of the right choices and votes that he has done for all of us average american citizens in his extensive political career, Ron Paul deserves the Presidency of this country. A true patriot unlike any other politician. If you look at all the things he's done since 1971, and for all the right reasons, we owe him gratitude and thanks. The least we can do for him is give him a chance at the helm. Good luck Dr Paul and god bless!
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who's consistent on all issues. He's the real change candidate. I do hope he runs for the third party. GO........Ron Paul......
If Paul runs a 3rd party ticket, it will ensure an Obama win, but at least give me someone to vote for
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination it will serve the Republicans and everyone else right to get Obama. The rest are all Obama's ie pandering politicians that only care about votes and themselves.
This is the only way Obama would have a chance but Ron Paul will not split the Republican vote, he's not stupid because doing that would pretty much put Obama back in charge and he's worse then anything the GOP can put up. I would RATHER have the Democratic party run a third party! Go hillary go!!!
Why dont you ask santorum, perry, or bachman if they will go 3rd party?
Paul is doing better than all of them. He wins straw polls left and right.
Ron Paul 2012! Republicans better hope Ron Paul gets the nomination cause if he doesn't there will be a split in the Republican Party and Obama will win again. I would hate to see that happen but I refuse to vote for anyone other then Ron Paul.
This is just the latest attempt to undermine Ron Paul and prove to neutral observers that CNN is giving him coverage. Talk of him going third party and splitting the conservative vote is all about reducing his credibility in the Republican Party.
Why would he, he has a really good chance of winning the republican nomination. He has some money and usually is close to third in a modest amount of the polls. Once people realize he can win, well who knows??
You know what? Once you look at the field of candidates there is not hard decision at all. Ron Paul would be the ONLY vote that would be a vote that wasn't for the present and past status. The others are ALL different various personalities of the same agenda. And very deeply rooted in politics at it's worst. Yes even Herman Cain whom boast about not being a politician like the others. He is and has been more in line with the political status as any other. With the exception of Ron Paul whom has and will prove loyal to American principle at it's core.
Ron Paul is not treated fairly by the media. It is quite apparent. Even today I heard TAKE FIVE on FOX mention everyone but Ron Paul. And this has not been an isolated incident, since I listen closely to the news and follow the debates.
I am in the military and I support RP even stronger than before. I hope he makes a 3rd party run for the presidency. Maybe it is not the right time for winning, but building the base for Libertarian ideals is the right time. The Fed should go. Can you really justify an unaudited agency that prints money without any backing? Are we really right to police the world?
IMO, the biggest reason he is treated with contempt is b/c he refuses to give Israel some special status. AIPAC is a powerful lobbying machine and they want US dollars...my tax dollars! No special status. We will be your friend, but no special status.
I voted for RP in the last election and I will vote for him again.
GOSH! You guys are so hurt about things now, you are willing to put anyone in office. Be carefull of what you ask for. you just might get it
Ron Paul v Obama v Romney in a debate.... Paul would OBLITERATE the two.
This is the dumbest article ever. Ron Paul CAN and WILL win the nomination. Why don't you anti-paul people go look him up and look at his record. A champion of the Constitution, will bring home ALL the troops, and DESTROY the cancer of the federal reserve system. Ron Paul 2012. RESTORE AMERICA NOW.
the democrats – like wolf blitzer – know that the only way barack obama gets reelected is if ron paul goes third party...this article is an attempt to get paul supporters energized with that possibility...ron paul has chosen to run as a republican for that very reason...nice try wolf...
Not so sure about that Daveugber. I think RP can pull a strong Democratic base, too. He has a strong message against corporate welfare, and in essence, he believes in true liberty. His opposition to the drug war and interventionist policies can appeal to many Ds. If many of those Ds can get beyond the fact that big government is causing much of the problem with inflation and promoting the housing problem, etc. then he could pull a large base of support. His integrity will pull weight with many who just want something refreshing. I think this is how Obama pulled off the last election. Everyone saw him as a non status quo person who had a good heart and wanted to do the right thing.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and if he doesn't win the nomination, I fully intend to push to get him to run third party.
If the Republicans lose to Obama as a result of a third party Paul run, it would serve the Party right for backing a spineless, plastic banker buddy, instead of a true Constitutional conservative like Ron Paul.
Besides, it's not as if Romney would actually change very much policy-wise if elected. We would get much of the same thing we've gotten with Bush and Obama – more wreckless spending, more wars, less civil liberties.
Hell, I say it's Ron Paul or bust. If he doesn't win the nomination and doesn't run third party, not only will I NOT vote for the lesser of evils, but I will probably be packing my bags, my wealth (what's left of it), and my family and getting the hell out of the country.
Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he is not articulate, and appears too old for this position.
President made two promises when he was campaigning for president.
(1) He would end the war in Iraq.
(2) He would "get" Osama bin Laden. He has accomplished both. He is my choice for another term,
Do you honestly think ALL the troops will be home? We have spent Billions of dollars building an embassy in Iraq. You think were just going to leave? The security contractors will take over the role of the troops. I believe some of the troops will be home but to say that ALL will come home is just empty rhetoric for poilitcal gain. Remember Obama received the most campaign contributions from the Defense Industry in 2008.
Three ships called Dartmouth, Elanor, and Beaver those were the oriignal ships what we need is to be aware and have movement with better leaders come from Jefferson, Monroe, Roosevelt, we need a real leader in there D.C. is a mess right now hopefully a great candidate can win like Romney, Santorum
I'm going to vote for him, and only him. If the GOP refuses to nominate him, I will do my part to make sure Obama is reelected and no GOP candidate is ever elected again. They'll have to live with their decision to continue to support the corporate candidates.
I will double that. If paul doesnt win i (and my follow paulers) will vote for obama. 4 years later we will be in a even worst situation (hard to picture) then a paul or paul type will win.
It's sad the mainstream media wants to keep things going down the same path to self destruction... keep electing these representitves of corporations and wall street to the white house. obama with his record donations(highest of any president ever) from wall st and lobbyists and romney with his donors comming from the same place. Then we have too many people that cant see the meida is programming them. Havent the learned yet they get screwed everytime by following the medias opinions.
all the dependents and beggars of govt would not vote for Ron Paul unless they are genuinely employed there. every fake job in govt is anti vote for ron paul. then there are pharmas, health care and defense companies and their war mongering cnn and fox. this makes it ron paul difficult to win.
There is zero no difference between Obama and Romney. Ron Paul is the only one that could restore America.
He won't be the GOP nominee and he won't run as a 3rd party candidate. No one will this year. It will be a ticket of ROMNEY-RUBIO vs OBAMA-BIDEN and the Democrats will win again, taking the Senate but losing the House. Nothing will change for the next four years, except to get worse. The bloated Republican fatcats will get richer and the middle class in America will disappear. Time to move to Canada.
Isolationism means no trade & no travel. Ron Paul advocates both of those making him NOT an isolationist. He simply wants to stop with our military presence in 140+ countries and the wars. Being against war does not make one an isolationist.
Ron Paul is not an Isolationist! He promotes trade with most nations, but no political alliances!
Pathetic. Ron Paul win's the Ohio straw poll this last weekend by a land slide – over 50% of the votes – and no major article on CNN other than this garbage talking about running as a Libertarian. Wolf – Why did CNN make such a HUGE deal out of Herman Cain when he won the Florida Straw poll, but you and your team turn away when Ron Paul performs well in a poll – especially one as critical as Ohio. Mitt Romney won the Ohio Straw poll this last Summer, but was crushed in it this past weekend. It's time to start being honest and begin referring to Ron Paul as a top tier candidate.
Of course Ron Paul won't get the Republican nomination, simply because he thinks for himself. The Republican Party wants someone who will toe the line and do their bidding, (or at the least, someone like Bush who is too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated by the real "powers behind the throne"). Paul should run as a 3rd party candidate (Independent? and give voters a real choice.
Of course Ron Paul won't get the Republican nomination, simply because he thinks for himself. The Republican Party wants someone who will toe the line and do their bidding, (or at the least, someone like Bush who is too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated by the real "powers behind the throne"). Paul should run as a 3rd party candidate (Independent? and give voters a real choice"
I have this to say about that.
You'r post is very well written, I can only hope Mr Paul wins. I am scared to death for my country and it's people. Our politicians have sold us all out and we may not recover from this for a very long time, IF AT ALL :(:(:(
Reddog I have to agree with your statement that the Republicans will not allow him to get nominated on their ticket. Ron Paul just wouldn't turn in the favors, that they want to take full advantage of once their man/woman is in office, if they were to get elected as President. I believe if he ran as an Independent he wouldn't win either. It's difficult to get the public to vote off the ticket (either Democrat or Republicans.) I think part of that reasoning behind that is they think that they will are "throwing away" their vote. Past elections show very few people vote for any Independent or other political party. I hope hope he does stay in for the long haul. He is the best candidate out there so far. He also seem true to his word.
Anyone but the big two! Just too bad the deck is stacked. As for Ron, I hope he realizes there's a legitimate roll for gov't.
i sure hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate!!
He's not an isolationist. He just wants to go to war only when congress declares it. That is what the founders what. That is what the Constitution lays out. He wants to trade with people, talk with people, and be friends with people. How is that isolationist? That is what James Madison advised. That is what Thomas Jefferson advised. That is what George Washington advised
I'm very confident Ron Paul will win the republican nomination. Mr. Blitzer's questioning seems to be an attempt to undermine Ron Paul's efforts. Exactly what the press has tried to do this entire cycle.
YEAH YOU WISH WOLF: bad news: paul is running as a major party candidate, he's gonna win the nomination, he's gonna roll obama, and he's gonna TRY and save this country. Lets just hope there's still time.
You must be joking, People who listen tho this fool have to be some of the dumbest people in the world. Paul does not stand a snowballs chance in hell of even getting the nomination much less beating a much more intelligent and savvy foe like President Obama.
We all know Ron Paul has zero chance of becoming the candidate for the GOP, or even a snowballs chance in hell for the White House. Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate, like it or not. It's a weak field, we might as well focus on 2016. Maybe we will get lucky and see Chris Christie run in 2016. I don't see Democrats loving Biden like Obama.
Romney is clearly the establishment pick, and the establishment doesn't care whether obomba or romney win; they still get what they want – more power.
I've lost all confidence in the whole government. Ron Paul is the only one that isn't paid off and offers the right ideas this country needs right now. It's so obvious the way the establishment media trys to downplay his candidacy. We need someone not republican and not democrat, that is for sure. His age concerns me but if he thinks he can do it, I'm writing his name down anyway. Real freedom.=Ron Paul.
I think Ron Paul has a real chance if he dumped the Republocrat ticket completely, ran as an Independent Libertarian candidate and aligned himself with the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy America movement as their candidate of choice. He has stood firm over the past 30 years with practically word for word the positions that this movement espouses. In addition he could align with and focus enhance the OWS movement's position over the past few weeks of delivering a protest vote in the next presidential election to not vote for a republican or a democrat, but vote independent for all candidates in all elections. I think Ron Paul could make history as the first president elected from an independent party.
I'd be extremely disappointed if he didn't. He made the announcement not to run for congress again, right after claiming to go all in. This legally frees him up to do a 3rd party run, whereas he couldn't last time around. I know he's had problems with 3rd party runs in the past, but everyone I know who got in the party because of him are hanging on by a thread. After the way we've been treated, most of us want nothing more than to tear down the party if he doesn't get the nom. A third party run would be the best way to do that. But if he doesn't, that will still be the focus of a lot of people out there. And then there's the fact that more than half of the RP supporters I talk to won't get involved because they don't want that R next to their name. He needs to go independent, or he won't have truly gone "all in."
If CNN and the rest of mainstream media gave Ron Paul the TV/online coverage he actually deserves, running 3rd party wouldn't even be in the picture. Instead you ignore him during the debates and online, and when you do involve him, it's to ask him pointless questions like this instead of talking about the real issues with Ron Paul.
I disagree with the guy on pretty much everything, but he's the only one on both sides who permits himself to be honest, even when it makes him unelectable. If every candidate would represent themselves in that way, elected officials would be a lot more accountable and a lot less of a disappointment when in office. 'What you see is what you get' is what's missing in modern politics.
I'm sure he would run as a third party candidate if he thought he had a chance of winning instead of ruining the changes of the GOP.
Strategically there is no sense in even addressing this now. His focus is on getting the GOP nomination. RP is intelligent enough to see that.
The real difference bteewen Ron Paul supporters and other candidates support is that we are active, and the other campaigns have passive support. We go out of our way to support everything about our guy because that is the only way we have to spread the word. The media is not covering him, we don't have $20 million in the bank to run ads. We have less than a year to get out the vote, but we will.I donate money, put stickers on my cars, hand out pamphlets, talk to my friends/family about him, and I am going to set help work an info booth at a gun show this month before this campaign, I've never done more than cast a vote. I'm into the message, I don't care if he wins or not. If he is the next Barry Goldwater, and in 8 or 10 years we have a new crop of libertarian Republicans running for office because they became inspired by his campaign this year, then we have accomplished something.
I grew up with Ron Paul but he is too old and too Kookie
For the thousandth time... "Non-Interventionalist". NOT Isolationist. There IS a difference.
one thing sure..cnn, blitzer, and aipac continue to muddy the water, try to put a spin on the what ifs, to deceive the voters for their own agenda..smart voters can see through their deception..this country needs to re-establish its agenda..to defuse this g8, g20 formula..aipac, and blitzer are a joke, and need to be ignored..the power brokers in israel, and here will finally be exposed for their strong arm influence..Ron Paul and all his supporters can pull this off..
Paul said he hadn't thought about running as a 3rd party candidate......now you know that's a lie. I guarantee you he has thought about it. In any case he will NOT be elected, if you think he has any chance, forget it, you're just kidding yourself>
I would personally support (with my vote as well as campaign contributions) Ron Paul running as a third party candidate if the Republicans fail to nominate him. At age 76, this is clearly Dr. Paul's final campaign and I would like to see him continue to spread the ideals of liberty for as long as he can on a national stage. I think he would take votes equally from President Obama and Governor Romney (should he get the nomination). Honestly, I don't believe there's much difference at all between the President and Romney so it doesn't concern me that a third party could throw the election for one side or the other.
3rd party candidates are not even ALLOWED to be at any of the debates there is NO CHANCE of him running in the libertarian ticket, that's foolish.
Ron Paul 2012
3rd party candidates are not even ALLOWED to be at any of the debates there is NO CHANCE of him running in the libertarian ticket, that's foolish.
he wants to hide the US from the world? how? he wants to end all these illegal wars stop bbnmiog nations that never attacked us.. but he would rather have peace and be friends with other nations and trade with them.. how is he trying to hide the US from the world? you want Iran to nuke us for no reason? why? Zionist Israel has a secret nuke program.. 300 nuclear weapons the US has thousands.. and your worried about Iran getting one? haha
I'm really tired of Ron "holier-then-thou" Paul. His policies would destroy the country he purports to love.
Only if you're a government employee, welfare recipient, wholly reliant on the federal government to take care of you. Getting rid of 90% of the government wouldn't hurt the nation, it would make us stronger, wealthier, and would rid us of parasites who feed off the 50% who actually pay taxes.
What's going on? Simply put: the piggies at the trugoh know that Ron Paul is serious about putting K Street out of business and ending spending on a fundamental, radical level. I don't know how much he'd actually be able to accomplish but you can bet nobody wants to find out. That they are going to such lengths to marginalize and silence the man speaks volumes. I'm not raging Ron Paul fan but it's pretty clear they're pulling out all the stops to keep him from going anywhere.
If you and and your co-workers at CNN gave Ron Paul the TV/online coverage that he deserves, we wouldn't even need to be asking this question. Instead, mainstream media ignores him; and when they do give him coverage, it's over stupid questions like this, instead of the real topics that you discuss with all the other candidates.
Ron Paul will never, ever, ever be President. And it's not because the media ignores him. It's because most people think he's a fruitcake. A very old fruitcake.
and you try to read 2 pages of medical book or try learning what he has forgetten.
He is a vetran, sportsman, family person and doctor, 12 time congressman...what are u, could not manage to keep your wife happy – probably had couple of divorces, living of free on govt money or advertisement money with a corporate job.Start being productive for once in your life and then you can talk abt ron paul.
Whatever works. I'm to the point where I won't vote for republican or democrat ever again. It's time for REAL change.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
Original published @ Guardian Books
One of the notable features of science fiction and fantasy fandom is that it exists around five to 10 years ahead of the curve when it comes to information technology. The 50% of the early world wide web that wasn't porn was made up of Star Trek: The Next Generation fansites; with every new territory opened up by technology, be it blogs, social networks or ebooks, SF fans have been among the early colonists. This is partly because SF and fantasy is part of the genetic code of most tech geeks. But it's also because SF fandom is a tight-knit community, and from the earliest days of print fanzines onwards it has recognised new ways to build the strength of that community.
SF and fantasy writers understand that community, or they pay with their careers. Frankly, trying to become a SF author without an intimate understanding of SF fandom is like trying to become a Catholic priest without talking to the Vatican. For most SF and fantasy writers this understanding is innate; they've been fans from birth, and the web of conventions, societies, publishers and online communities that make up the architecture of fandom have likely been their safe haven from the annoyingly ungeeky "mainstream" for much of their life. Even the authors who appear to criticise or reject fandom, such as Harlan Ellison, do so with the studied skills of the expert insider.
So the success of a novel such as Fifty Shades of Grey is far less surprising to anyone who understands the dynamics of fandom than to the mainstream publishing industry. When James Bridle pointed to the book as evidence of fan-fiction as a rich seam for publishers, he managed to come amusingly close to the point while missing it altogether. That it was fan-fiction based in Stephenie Meyer's Twilightverse is beside the point. That it was chosen by fans and made successful through their support is far more significant. Because what fans want above all else – what in fact defines the very essence of fandom – is ownership of that which we adore.
It is the emerging culture of fandom, empowered by the internet andsocial media, that explains the phenomenal success of crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter. The platform's most high profile success stories – The Order of the Stick's $1m fundraiser, for example – tell only a part of the story. More informative perhaps is author Chuck Wendig,who raised just under $7,000 for the latest instalment in his Atlanta Burns series through crowdfunding. Wendig isn't a superstar (yet) and doesn't have a huge established readership (also yet). But what he has gained is the warm regard of a fandom through his Terribleminds blog. Every fan who buys a piece of Wendig gets to feel a real sense of ownership, far more than if they had just walked into a shop and paid for the book itself. In a very real sense Kickstarter makes fans as important as creators, because it is the fans who directly empower the artist to make the art.
But the demands of fandom are far from the lofty expectations of many who seek artistic fame and fortune. As musician Amanda Palmer relates to Techdirt, the people who are contributing to her Kickstarter, whichstands at $577,010 with 24 days to go at the time of writing, are giving because they know her. Twitter is the platform that has allowed her as an artist to develop a personal rapport with tens of thousands of people, on top of a relentless tour schedule. Palmer spends hours every day sharing her life on Twitter, and when it came time to support an artist they felt a personal bond with, her fandom have come through with more solid financial support that most artists will ever receive from a record label or book publisher. In Palmer's own words, we are entering the age of the social artist.
Any writer working today who can't answer the question, "What fandom am I writing for?" may as well pack up their pens and paper and settle into that call centre job. It doesn't have to be SF fandom. In fact, preferably not, as we're already swamped with refugee literary writers desperately trying to make out they've always been geeks at heart. In this age, fandom's are the only true arbiters of taste. The publishers that survive will be the ones that understand that their role is to amplify the signal of those artists already chosen by fandom. The writers who succeed will be the ones who are there day in and day out, as much a part of fandom as any other fan, and on first name terms with the neighbours. Because if you aren't willing to live on the ground as one of the fans, why should you expect them to hoist you on their shoulders for your shot at reaching the stars?
Related articles
- Fandom matters (guardian.co.uk)
- Why Science Fiction is the literature of change (writingindustries.com)


text:
Six Seconds to Live
This article from the May issue of The American Legion Magazine is an excerpt of a speech Lt. Gen. John Kelly gave to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis on Nov. 13, 2010. The full text of the speech is available here.
Our country today is in a life-and-death struggle against an evil enemy, but America as a whole is certainly not at war. Not as a country. Not as a people. Today, only a tiny fraction of American families – less than 1 percent – shoulder the burden of fear and sacrifice, and they shoulder it for the entire nation. Their sons and daughters who serve are men and women of character who continue to believe in this country enough to put life and limb on the line without qualification, and without thought of personal gain, so the sons and daughters of the other 99 percent don't have to. No big deal, though. Marines have always been first to fight, paying in full the bill that comes with being free for everyone else.
The comforting news for every American is that our men and women in uniform are as good today as any in our history. As good as their heroic, underappreciated and largely abandoned fathers and uncles were in Vietnam, and their grandfathers were in Korea and World War II, they have the same steel in their backs and have made their own mark, etching forever places like Ramadi, Fallujah and Baghdad in Iraq, and Helmand and Sangin, Afghanistan, that are now part of U.S. military legend and stand just as proudly alongside Iwo Jima, Normandy, Inchon, Hue City, Khe Sanh and A Shau Valley, Vietnam.
While some might think we have produced yet another generation of materialistic and self-absorbed young people, those who serve today have broken the mold and stepped out as real men, and real women, who are already making their own way in life while protecting ours. They have learned, at the same time they have served and fought for us, that the real strength of a platoon, a battalion or a country is not based on worshipping at the altar of diversity or separateness. On the contrary, they know that our immigrant and castoff ancestors, many of whom came here in chains, forged a nation that was a melting pot stitched together by a shared sense of history, values, customs, hopes and dreams, all of which unified an earlier America into a whole, as opposed to an unruly gaggle of hyphenated names or multicultural individuals.
Our servicemen and women also come to understand that it's not about color, but about character. That it's not about where in the world you came from, but all about why you came. That it's not about the God you worship, but that you will respect and even fight for the right of your neighbor to venerate any God he or she damn well pleases. That it's not about individual achievement, but all about achieving together as a people for the common good. That there is an exceptionalism about America, and that we should cherish who we are and why we are extraordinary. Those of us who serve or have served in America's armed forces have a profound understanding of these truths. Unfortunately, many in our great country today seldom fully appreciate them, or even hear of them beyond rhetoric every couple of years.
And what are they like in combat in this war? Like Marines have been throughout our history. These young people demonstrate their commitment to us not in words, but in action. In my three tours in combat as an infantry officer and commanding general, I never saw one of them hesitate, or do anything other than lean into the fire and, with no apparent fear of death or injury, take the fight to our enemies.
As anyone who has ever experienced combat knows, when it starts, when the explosions and tracers are everywhere, and the calls for the corpsman or medic are screamed from the throats of men who know they are dying – when seconds seem like hours and it all becomes slow motion and fast forward at the same time, and the only rational act is to stop, get down, save yourself – they don't. When no one would call them a coward for cowering behind a wall or in a hole, slave to the most basic of all human instincts – survival – none of them do. It doesn't matter if it's an IED, a suicide bomber, mortar attack, sniper, fighting in the upstairs room of a house, or all of it at once – they talk, swagger and, most importantly, fight today in the same way America's Marines have since Tun Tavern. They also know whose shoulders they stand on, and they will never shame any veteran of any service, living or dead.
We can also take comfort in the fact that these young Americans are not born killers but are good and decent young men and women who, for going on 10 years, have performed remarkable acts of bravery and selflessness to a cause they have decided is bigger and more important than themselves. Only a few months ago, they were delivering your paper, stocking shelves in the local grocery store, serving Mass on Sunday, or playing hockey on local ice.
Like my own two sons – who are Marines and have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan – they are also the same kids that drove their cars too fast for your liking, and played the god-awful music of their generation too loud, but have no doubt they are the finest of their generation. Like those who went before them in uniform, we owe them everything. We owe them our safety. We owe them our prosperity. We owe them our freedom. We owe them our lives.Any one of them could have done something more self-serving with their lives, as the vast majority of their age group elected to do after high school and college. But no, they chose to serve, knowing full well a brutal war was in their future. They did not avoid the most basic and cherished responsibility of a citizen: the defense of country. They welcomed it. They are the very best this country produces, and have put every one of us ahead of themselves. All are heroes for simply stepping forward, and we as a people owe a debt we can never fully pay. Just yesterday, two were lost, and a knock on the door late last night brought their families to their knees in a grief that will never go away. Thousands more have suffered terrible wounds since it all started, but like anyone who loses life or limb while serving others – including our firefighters and law-enforcement personnel, who on 9/11 were the first casualties of this war – they are not victims; they knew what they were about, and were doing what they wanted to do. Indeed, they were in exactly the place they wanted to be: among the best men and women America produces. The chattering class and all those who doubt America's intentions and resolve, endeavor to make them and their families out to be victims, but they are wrong. We who have served, and are serving, refuse their sympathy.I have a story I wish to relate about the kind of people they are, about the steel in their backs, and the kind of dedication they bring to our country. When I was the commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, on April 22, 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 "The Walking Dead," and 2/8, were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion was in the closing days of its deployment, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour.Two Marines, Cpl. Jonathan Yale and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines. The same ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, our allies in the fight against terrorists in Ramadi – known at the time as the most dangerous city on earth, and owned by al-Qaeda. Yale was a dirt-poor mixed-race kid from Virginia, with a wife, a mother and a sister, who all lived with him and he supported. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle-class white kid from Long Island. They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines, they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple Americas exist simultaneously, depending on one's race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, education level, economic status, or where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible, and because of this bond they were brothers as close – or closer – than if they were born of the same woman.The mission orders they received from their sergeant squad leader, I'm sure, went something like this: "OK, take charge of this post and let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass. You clear?" I'm also sure Yale and Haerter rolled their eyes and said, in unison, something like, "Yes, sergeant," with just enough attitude that made the point, without saying the words, "No kidding, sweetheart. We know what we're doing." They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry-control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.A few minutes later, a large blue truck turned down the alleyway – perhaps 60 to 70 yards in length – and sped its way through the serpentine concrete Jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck's engine came to rest 200 yards away, knocking down most of a house down before it stopped. Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was caused by 2,000 pounds of explosive. Because these two young infantrymen didn't have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers in arms.When I read the situation report a few hours after it happened, I called the regimental commander for details. Something about this struck me as different. We expect Marines, regardless of rank or MOS, to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different. The regimental commander had just returned from the site, and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event – just Iraqi police. If there was any chance of finding out what actually happened, and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I'd have to do it, because a combat award requires two eyewitnesses, and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi police, all of whom told the same story. They all said, "We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing." The Iraqi police related that some of them also fired, and then, to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion. All survived. Many were injured, some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated, and with tears welling up, said, "They'd run like any normal man would to save his life."What he didn't know until then, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion, he said, "Sir, in the name of God, no sane man would have stood there and done what they did. They saved us all."What we didn't know at the time, and only learned after I submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras recorded some of the attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated. You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives.I suppose it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. No time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: "Let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass." It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time, the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed. Here the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were, some running right past the Marines, who had three seconds left to live.For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines firing their weapons nonstop. The truck's windshield explodes into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tear into the body of the son of a bitch trying to get past them to kill their brothers – American and Iraqi – bedded down in the barracks, totally unaware that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground.Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder-width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could. They had only one second left to live, and I think they knew.The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty. Those are the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight for you, and as amazing as this selfless act of sacrifice may seem, it is the norm. In all the years I have been both enlisted and an officer of Marines, I have praised them and have chewed them out. I have promoted them and unceremoniously disciplined them. I have hung decorations on them and court-martialed them. I have visited them mangled and broken in military hospitals around the country, in lonely defensive positions across Iraq, and in brigs. I have known thousands of them over nearly 40 years, and I can tell you without hesitation or qualification that I never met one who would have run from his post that morning – who would have done anything other than to have stood there and died.I have the name of the most recent hero, killed in Afghanistan a few hours ago, but I cannot share with you his name because a Marine officer and Navy chaplain have not yet executed their honored duty of notifying the next of kin. That family, right now, somewhere in America, is in the final minutes of blissful ignorance before their entire lives change forever. I know God will help them bear this inconceivable burden – a burden I am told by those who know that never goes away or even gets lighter – and help them find comfort in the fact that their son was doing exactly what he wanted to do, was doing it with the finest men on this earth, and for a cause that meant more to him than his life. The reality, however, is that it doesn't matter if we are comforted, or if we accept it or not. It only matters that he did.We Marines believe that God gave America the greatest gift he could bestow on man while he lives on this earth: freedom. We also believe he gave us another gift nearly as precious – our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines – to safeguard that gift and guarantee no force on this earth can ever steal it away. Rest assured that our America, this experiment in democracy begun over two centuries ago, will forever remain the land of the free and home of the brave so long as we never run out of tough young Americans who are willing to look beyond their own self-interest and comfortable lives, and go into the darkest and most dangerous places on earth to hunt down and kill those who would do us harm. God bless America, and semper fidelis. Lt. Gen. John Kelly is senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Kelly delivered this speech to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis on Nov. 13, 2010, four days after his son, Marine 1st Lt. Robert Kelly, was killed in action in Afghanistan.