Array
we have come to know a virtual friend through the internet who lives close to New Orleans. we e-mailed her shortly before the hurricane came ashore offering our best wishes for her and her family, not knowing if she would even be able to receive our note. she sent a short e-mail back, letting us know that she and her family were safe and secure, from the local library in the town to which they had repaired. Homeland Security and FEMA were worse than useless before Katrina and in the immediate aftermath.My emotions alternate between deep sadness for the people of the city I grew up in and fury at the Bush administration for their ponderously slow response.As you know by now we have no homeland security. We were in the waiting area at the airport, on the way home when we found that the hurricane would hit somewhere near the Louisiana coast.We spent one night at home, immediately began securing our house, and the next morning evacuated to the small farm where my husband grew up, which is located north of Baton Rouge. A couple of days after the storm, my son-in-law was able to get to his house in Jefferson Parish and take supplies to his neighbor who had stayed behind and helped by feeding their pet chickens. Every few days he would take him supplies.On his first trip in, he brought back a friend who was living in his house with no running water and no power, so we had fifteen by then, and another dog.
link
(You see, I can’t really force you to stay, BUT, my site meter tells me how long you spend here so I will know if you are really concerned about my health) That was a joke!!So anyway here it is:Fasting 73 Normal: 65-991/2 107 Normal: 65-1991 hour 78 Normal: 65-1992 hour 83 Normal: 65-1393 hour 51 Normal: 65-1094 hour 60 Normal: 65-1095 hour 68 Normal: 65-1096 hour 70 Normal: 65-109My fasting insulin was 4.9 the norm is 6.0-27.0When I was having the test done, I knew I was low between the 2-3 and 3-4 hour spots because I was exhausted, repeat, exhausted and I had a major headache, all symptoms of hypoglycemia. Girlfriend loves her food, but I just forget to eat and than BAM, I am in that downward spiral of fatigue, mood swings and irritability.He gave me a great food guide to follow and he is putting together a meal plan for me to follow, I am supposed to eat every two to three hours.I have another issue with a hormone called DHEA.
link
Hi!Yesterday India played against New Zealand in the final of the Videocon cup 2005.India won the toss and elected to bat first.Sehwag and Ganguly were the Indian openers.They had a good partnership of 72 runs.But then Ganguly was caught by Hamish Marshall on a ball by Oram.Sehwag was still firing.Kaif then came to the crease.Kaif also had a good partnership with Sehwag of 83 runs.But then Sehwag got out after scoring a fast 75 of just 65 balls.He was caught by Vincent on a ball by Vettori.Then Sir Dravid(Rahul Dravid) was also declared lbw in the same over.He went for a duck.Yuvraj also got out on 20,caught by Bond,bowled by Mills.Venugopal,Yadav,Dhoni and Agarkar got out after scoring 8,11,o and 6.Pathan got out for 10 and Nehra on 0.Kaif remained not out on 93.India was all out in the 50th over for 276.The best bowling figures for New Zealand were those of Oram.His figures were 4-58 after 8.3 overs.It seemed that it was India’s game.But Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astle changed the face of the game.Pathan was smashed for 5 fours in an over by Stephen Fleming.They had a great partnership of 121 runs in just 18.1 overs.Stephen Fleming was caught and bowled by Sehwag.Hamish Marshall got out on 3.He was declared lbw on a ball by Sehwag.Styris went for 37 after having a good partnership of 58 with Astle.He got out when he was stump out by Dhoni on a ball by Sehwag.Mc Millan was caught by Dhoni on a ball by Yuvraj.He went after scoring 13.Lou Vincent scored 33 not out.He was dropped twice.First he was dropped by Suresh Raina and the second time he was dropped by Sir Dravid.But Sir Dravid’s one was a very difficult catch.Astle scored his 15th ODI century.He remained not out on 115.New Zealand scored 278 and won by 6 wickets.The best bowling figures for India were those of Sehwag.His figures were 3-44 after 10 overs.Nathan Astle was declared the man of the match for his match winning 115*.Shane Bond being the man of the series as he took 11 wickets in the series.
link
The suspense over the breadth of President Bush’s ability to reshape the Supreme Court ended this evening with the announcement of the death of the Chief Justice. Now we know that Bush will have at least two seats to fill on the Court, extrely significant considering the divided nature of the Court on interpretation of the Takings Clause, the Right to privacy, the constitutionality of Affirmative Action, and numerous other issues. Rehnquist usually sided with the Originalist interpretation camp on such cases, but more out of general conservatism and traditionalism than a commitment to Originalism. O’Connor was a crucial swing vote. Justice-designate John Roberts appears reliably conservative, but has taken pains to avoid being labelled as radical (in other words, having strong principles regarding Constitutional interpretation) or extreme (in other words, not serving as a blatant advocate for all forms of left-wing causes). All indications point to him being another traditionalist, like Rehnquist, not a passionate ideologue like Scalia or Thomas. However, Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy were also reliable conservatives with quiet judicial records, and they proved to be the salvation of the Living Constitution and its advocates. So while the President’s conservative base, as well as believers in the Originalism doctrine, were happy to have Roberts and not the apparently pro-choice Alberto Gonzales on the Court, they were hoping for a more credentialed conservative with more predictable opinions. The Rehnquist vacancy is now their last chance, a chance for the President to reshape the Court under strong leadership.Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia would be an ideal choice. He has struck just the right balance between talking Originalist and voting conservative to appeal strongly to both groups. While the option of Scalia fills with left-wingers with dread, he is generally acknowledged by all to be a formidable legal mind, an excellent and passionate writer, and a gentleman. Scalia’s confirmation battle would be a knock-down, drag-out fight that might lead to the invoking of the famous nuclear option, but Scalia could win confirmation, and won 98-0 confirmation as Associate Justice in 1986. A few well-planned endorsements by moderate Democratic senators like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska could break down momentum for a filibuster and ensure Scalia’s confirmation, with approximately 60-65 votes in favor. The real danger lies in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings. In 1987, Judge Robert Bork’s nomination was defeated after he appeared arrogant/confident, passionate and strongly Originalist in front of the Committee. Bork had no record on the Court itself, while Scalia has two decades’ worth. Bork was nominated for Associate Justice, while Scalia would dominate the Court as Chief. Scalia cannot reserve his opinion on privacy and affirmative action– he voted when it counted, and everyone knows where he stands. He needs to moderate his clear ideological passion during those hearings, answering questions honestly but tersely, and resisting inevitable attempts by Senators Edward Kennedy, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer to bait him into an argument. In short, Scalia needs to appear as if he were already the Chief Justice– dignified, assured and competent.Scalia does have several drawbacks, though. He is almost seventy years old, and can be expected to be a force on the Court for ten to fifteen years at most. He is also generally considered too ideological to be the unifying force that Rehnquist often appeared to be– Scalia is known for his spectacular dissents, not his majority opinions. Lastly, his nomination would necessitate the filling of his own seat as Associate Justice, and three controversial nomination fights within a matter of months, including two concurrent ones, might be more than the Bush Administration, the Republican Party or the Senate leadership want.And while Scalia is who conservatives and Originalists want, Bush has limited further need of their support. He has been elected twice, and now needs to make progress in pushing through Social Security reform and ensuring the continuation of support for the war in Iraq. However, one could also argue that on those matters, Bush needs to solidify the support of his base, to ensure that he does not falter entirely on those controversial issues.On the plus side, as Weekly Standard columnist Terry Eastland notes, Scalia would not be an unreasonable choice. I think it would be fine, and I dont think it would be nuclear war. He would be a judicial conservative replacing a judicial conservative.”Clarence ThomasThomas is also extremely conservative, and unlike Scalia, he is under 60, with the capacity to serve for fifteen or twenty years, or even more. But he is not nearly as respected by the left as Scalia is, and he already faced a devastating confirmation battle in 1991, one he came within three votes of losing. George W. Bush cannot want Thomas confirmation redux, and for that matter, neither can Thomas. Political columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote that it took years after his confirmation for Thomas to resume a normal life. He is also not known as a writer of majority opinions or a unifier. His nomination would also require a second nomination for his Associate Justice position. Thomas carries almost all of Scalias minuses and then some, and few plusses. He will not be the next Chief Justice.Who else?With remaining justices on the Supreme Court either unreliably conservative or just plain liberal, The New York Times considers an outsider to be the most likely choice for Chief Justice. I cannot question the Timess wisdom in this regard, as such a choice would alleviate the need for three quick confirmation battles, but by choosing Scalia Bush could choose an experienced justice to shape the Court for at least a decade. A number of prominent, conservative jurists have been proposed consistently for judicial vacancies. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada. Also mentioned are non-jurists like former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson (who would be the first black chief justice and thus is an extremely attractive choice who would be difficult for the left to torpedo) or former Solicitor General Ted Olson. The choice of a woman (albeit a confirmable one, unlike recently-confirmed Appeals Court judge Priscilla Owen) would also be a wise political move, neutralizing the left and making Bush the one to name the first female Chief Justice, while also restoring the number of women on the court to two.Another prominent choice is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He would be the first Hispanic justice (or Chief Justice, if Bush passes on Scalia entirely) and he was already bypassed once when Bush nominated Roberts. Barring an unexpected death, or a decision by liberal pillar Justice John Paul Stevens to not remain on the Court until Bush retires, this is probably Gonzaless last chance to serve on the Supreme Court. He will never again have as president a close friend, a man whom he served as White House counsel, and a man who appointed him to the Texas Supreme Court.But the choice of Gonzales would be wrong for several reasons. Gonzales has only served as Attorney General for a few months, and has yet to make a pronounced impact. While he has an inspiring rags-to-riches personal story which included military service, that story did not help him when over forty Senate Democrats voted against his nomination as Attorney General, due to his controversial memos as White House Counsel, which urged Bush to disregard the archaic Geneva Conventions regarding the use of torture on enemy combatants. Gonzales will win no plaudits from civil libertarians on the left or the right, and he will win no support from social conservatives due to his vote for a Texas Supreme Court opinion which refused to require parental permission for teenage girls to undergo abortions. The anti-abortion lobbies, and a large portion of Bushs base, would go absolutely berserk over Gonzaless appointment. I think that they would oppose the nomination actively, forcing Bush to take on them and the Democrats at once, and possibly costing Gonzales the votes he needs to obtain confirmation. Social conservatives could also, regardless of the nominations outcome, significantly lower their support for the rest of the Bush agenda, which Bush cannot afford if he wants to make any impact in the next year and a half, before he becomes a completely lame duck. Originalists would also be uneasy about Gonzales, due to his indicated support for precedent and his lack of clear opposition to such “Living Constitution” principles as the “right” to privacy.Bushs choice must depends on what he wants. If he wants to reshape the court towards an Originalist orientation, he must appoint Scalia as Chief Justice and appoint a strong conservative, someone confirmable, perhaps Luttig or Wilkinson, to replace Scalia. If Bush wants to achieve the maximum political success, he should bypass Scalia and name a moderate to conservative outsider of stature, but someone who is no older than fifty or fifty-five.My fear is that Bush will try to take the easy way out again, as he did when selecting Roberts. Conservatives and civil libertarians expect Bush to follow through on his promise to nominate strict constructionists like Scalia and Thomas. Another Roberts would not be good enough, a mediocre result from a president without sufficient drive and political capital. Alberto Gonzales, however, would be the conservative nightmare.
link
Week One in the NFL: ——————– ————————————————————————- Teams Odds Over/Under SuperBowl Odds ————————————————————————- Raiders(Oakland) 7.5 Over 50 40-1 ————————————————————————- Patriots(New England) -7.5 Under 50 7-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Broncos(Denver) -4.5 Over 38.5 38-1 ————————————————————————- Dolphins(Miami) 4.5 Under 38.5 75-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Bengals(Cincinnati) -3.5 Over 44.5 45-1 ————————————————————————- Browns(Cleveland) 3.5 Under 44.5 200-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Texans(Houston) 5.5 Over 38 100-1 ————————————————————————- Bills(Buffalo) -5.5 Under 38 42-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Titans(Tennessee) 7 Over 40 150-1 ————————————————————————- Steelers(Pittsburgh) -7 Under 40 19-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Bears(Chicago) 5.5 Over 33 80-1 ————————————————————————- Redskins(Washington) -5.5 Under 33 60-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Saints(New Orleans) 7 Over 45 75-1 ————————————————————————- Panthers(Carolina) -7 Under 45 14-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Buccaneers(Tampa Bay) 6 Over 43 65-1 ————————————————————————- Vikings(Minnesota) -6 Under 43 16-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Seahawks(Seattle) 3 Over 39.5 36-1 ————————————————————————- Jaguars(Jacksonville) -3 Under 39.5 40-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Jets(New York) 3 Over 47.5 20-1 ————————————————————————- Chiefs(Kansas City) -3 Under 47.5 23-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Cardinals(Arizona) 3 Over 37.5 50-1 ————————————————————————- Giants(New York) -3 Under 37.5 65-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Rams(St Louis) -6 Over 46.5 32-1 ————————————————————————- 49ers(San Francisco) 6 Under 46.5 250-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Packers(Green Bay) 3 Over 46 45-1 ————————————————————————- Lions(Detroit) -3 Under 46 45-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Cowboys(Dallas) 4.5 Over 40 28-1 ————————————————————————- Chargers(San Diego) -4.5 Under 40 30-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Colts(Indianapolis) -3 Over 46.5 11-2 ————————————————————————- Ravens(Baltimore) 3 Under 46.5 17-1 ————————————————————————- ————————————————————————- Eagles(Philadelphia) -1 Over 41.5 15-7 ————————————————————————- Falcons(Atlanta) 1 Under 41.5 16-1 ————————————————————————- About Sportsbook.comSportsbook.com is the largest sportsbook and casino on the planet, offering numerous products including sports betting, horse racing, poker, casino and virtual games.
link
Quick Facts about New Orleans: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22071.htmlOrleans Parish, Louisiana People QuickFacts Orleans Parish Louisiana Population, 2003 estimate 469,032 4,496,334 Population, % change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003 -3.2% 0.6% Population, 2000 484,674 4,468,976 Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 -2.5% 5.9% Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 6.9% 7.1% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 26.7% 27.3% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 11.7% 11.6% Female persons, percent, 2000 53.1% 51.6% White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 28.1% 63.9% Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 67.3% 32.5% American Indian & Alaska Native persons, %, 2000 (a) 0.2% 0.6% Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 2.3% 1.2% Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) 0.9% 0.7% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 1.3% 1.1% White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, %, 2000 26.6% 62.5% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 3.1% 2.4% Living in same house in 1995 & 2000′, pct age 5 , 2000 56.8% 59.0% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 4.2% 2.6% Language besides English spoken, pct age 5 , 2000 8.3% 9.2% High school graduates, % of persons age 25 , 2000 74.7% 74.8% Bachelor’s degree or higher, % age 25 , 2000 25.8% 18.7% Persons with a disability, age 5 , 2000 102,122 880,047 Mean travel time to work (mins), workers age 16 , 2000 25.7 25.7 Housing units, 2002 213,134 1,880,122 Homeownership rate, 2000 46.5% 67.9% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 42.7% 18.7% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 7,300 $ 85,000 Households, 2000 188,251 1,656,053 Persons per household, 2000 2.48 2.62 Median household income, 1999 7,133 2,566 Per capita money income, 1999 7,258 6,912 Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 27.9% 19.6% Business QuickFacts Orleans Parish Louisiana Private nonfarm establishments w/ paid employ, 2001 10,628 100,780 Private nonfarm employment, 2001 214,914 1,599,482 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2001 3.1% 0.4% Nonemployer establishments, 2000 23,224 234,114 Manufacturers shipments, 1997 (000) 2,304,957 80,423,978 Retail sales, 1997 (000) 2,771,305 35,807,894 Retail sales per capita, 1997 ,908 ,229 Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 28.6% 14.1% Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 26.6% 23.9% Housing units authorized by building permits, 2002 616 18,425 Federal funds and grants, 2002 (000) 5,276,203 29,987,664 Geography QuickFacts Orleans Parish Louisiana Land area, 2000 (square miles) 181 43,562 Persons per square mile, 2000 2,684.3 102.6
link
Modern, Cool Nerd60 % Nerd, 65% Geek, 21% Dork For The Record:A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.You scored better than half in Nerd and Geek, earning you the title of: Modern, Cool Nerd.Nerds didn’t use to be cool, but in the 90’s that all changed.
link
Read the rest of this entry »