Coffee Talk

After finishing the Rowan Scarborough book, Sabotoge : America's Enemies Within the CIA, I thought we would end Summer and start up the Coffee Talk with the ideas and evidence based within this book.

As a quick summary, Rowan Scarborough uses 216 pages to lay out his evidence from investigative journalism to prove that members and former members of the CIA are involved in partisan politics and are using classified information to discredit and attack the White House Administration through leaks to the mainstream media outlets. Also included, are attacks on key Administration officials by Democrats to discredit their roles in an effort (mostly successful in my opinion) to oust those officials from office.

To go into more detail, we'll start where the book starts...with Congressman Pete Hoekstra's "secret" letter to President Bush on May 18, 2006 concerning the nominee of Steve Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA. (Ironically, I was able to find a copy of the actual letter on the internet that was released by the New York Times in an effort to show that Pete Hoekstra was concerned about the Administration withholding key information in their inquiries with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with Hoekstra is a part of.) Here is the letter from the NYT article and website.

Although the letter shows concern on multiple areas, the book focuses on the statement in the letter "I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally under-minded the Administration and its policies." On the 3rd page of the book Scarborough has another quote from this time Pat Roberts of the Senate Intelligence Committee remarking, "What concerns me most...is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the President."

Added to the CIA leaks to attack the President and the Administration were former Senior Analyst at the CIA, Ray McGovern, and CIA analyst Bill Christison who have both helped the 9/11 Truth Movement and helped propel the conspiracy theories that a missile hit the Pentagon and that 9/11 was an inside job with their founding of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity organization. (Just type any of the three names and hundreds to thousands of articles will come up mostly from Counterpunch.org, Moveon.org, and numerous mainstream media articles they they have written and been "counter-terrorist analysts."

Then the last main players in the book are the media giants of the New York Times and Washington Post who have been publishing the damaging leaks and have helped shape the minds of Americans and foreigners alike. Some of the leaks mentioned were of reproduced parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, but only of the most negative assessments to the war according to Scarborough. (here's a list from the White House of NYT articles that they are refuting) Then the Washington Post revealed secret holding cells in Europe and elsewhere for captured al Qaeda leaders which embarrassed the Administration w/ supporting countries in the war on terror. One of the CIA sources was a Democratic John Kerry supporter, Mary McCarthy according the book.

The biggest leak was when the NYT disclosed a top secret program of instantaneous eavesdropping on suspected terrorists who were calling people withing the United States. Here's the article. Not only was this an embarrisment which Bush had to have a press conference about 3 days later, but it keyed al Qaeda into our method of NSA surveillance to track and key in on them. According to Scarborough, Hoekstra told him that al Qaeda then changed all of their communications methods to reach people within the US and it has made intercepting calls much more difficult. As a side note, in the book Scarborough quotes General Michael Hayden, who ran the NSA in 2001 as saying, "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgement that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."

This was all laid out in the first 7 pages of the book. From there he talks about how the Clinton Administration had eroded the CIA during the military cuts for 8 years in which the CIA lost at least 30% of its analytical and operating branches in Latin America and Asia. Indonesia had only 3 CIA officers by the mid 1990's (largest Muslim country). He also required the CIA to not deal with unsavory characters for sources which eliminates most of the good intelligence for terrorist organizations. Clinton also virtually stopped new recruiting by the mid-1990's, and you can see what a dire situation it is now when the CIA has commercials to recruit people on TV (as a friend pointed out while discussing this a couple days ago). Scarborough reported that if the CIA wanted good HUMINT (human intelligence) to get info from Iraq, it needed to develop those sources 20 to 30 years ago. Scarborough claims that the CIA had been in retreat since 1975, when Senator Frank Church's committee on intelligence exposed CIA misdeeds and made it difficult for the agency to recruit new agents. Instead, the CIA and intellligence community had to rely on defectors and sources that would lie for money or security. (See any intelligence report and you'll see the kind of people that were our sources) Phase II of the Select Committee on Intelligence discussing WMD Programs or Information used from the Iraqi National Congress

To top everything off, (and in my opinion is the most telling of the Democratic attacks on the Administration) the committee that was assembled to inquire into 9/11 and the War in Iraq, of which I put copies of Phase II reports above and Phase I below, were engaged in a partisan battle started by the Democrats and an internal memo that basically states that they would try to "castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry", leak promising leads to the media, and then whatever the committee finds, demand another investigation into the same matters by an independent body - and do it on a schedule that coincides with the election. Here are two congressional records discussing this. Nov 5, 2003 w/ details of the memo Nov. 7, 2003 discussion continued

So not only does he paint a picture that parts of the CIA are leaking information to discredit the Administration, but they could not even perform their duty of providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers. (See Mission on the sidebar of the CIA's website) Scarborough throughout the book goes into detail on how key CIA leaks and misinformation that were either incorrect, ficticious, or otherwise have damaged the Administration. Here is a list topics which I may go into in more detail at a future time...

CIA shortfalls
Defense Department and Rumsfeld needing to create intelligence divisions w/in the Army
Ahmed Chalabi and the INC
Pres. Bush State of the Union address and the Africa/uranium reference
John Bolton, his Heritage Foundation speech and his WMD speech
Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. John Keane
Paul Pillar's speeches and book Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
Tyler Drumheller, his no WMD claim, and Curveball
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson w/ Niger - Iraq connection
Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of of Niger-Iraq connection
Richard Armitage as source
Iran and lack of intelligence

With the apparent attack against the White House, George W. Bush and his Administration by members of the Democratic party and their supporters, how do you think the media has impacted your view of the US government in general and the current President in particular?

How has the emergence of the Internet and blogs like this one coupled with the rise of conspiracy theories relating to the media press releases, CIA leaks and anti-war advocates affected your opinion of the US government, the President and the War on Terror?

How has this posting affected your view of the media, the Democrats, and internet based articles?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Coffee Talk

Human Responsibility

There have been several events over the last few weeks that have caused me to think about human responsibility. First "The TB Guy", Andrew Speaker, who flew from Atlanta to Europe with the knowledge that he already had TB. Second, the continued talk of global warming and the steps each person should take and how their actions affect society as a whole. Finally, reading a recent interview with author Tao Lin and learning of steps he is willing to take to alleviate the suffering of another human (or animal).

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fully comprehend how our actions will ultimately affect others. When I put this cup of black coffee to my lips and take a refreshing sip, I don't know how that coffee was grown and if anyone had suffered during any part of that process. If I chose to drink organic coffee right now would the effect be any different? The reason I don't know is because I have chosen not to know, but is it my responsibility to understand how each of my daily actions affect society? As a vegetarian who chooses to buy organic whenever possible, who uses the greenest household products, recycles, donates both money and clothing, utilizes a community freecycle program to trade away items I no longer need, how much more of an effort should I make?

There is a moral obligation to understand, to the best of your ability, how you affect society. You must be a consumer, but how often do you think about what you are consuming and how that product was made? Is that your responsibility or does that fall on the retailer's shoulders? How often do you consider your social responsibility to the people directly around you, be it disease, smoking, reckless behavior, etc? How do you define suffering? Talk Amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Tolerance

What does it mean to be tolerant? Growing up we are told to be tolerant of others, that we need to accept their beliefs and difference. There is an entire generation (Y or millennial) now that believes tolerance means each persons belief is equal to mine. You see that type of tolerance works for issue like race and gender, but it does not work the way for belief and ideologies. It may seem strange now to think about having to tolerate another race because comes so naturally. Each race is equal and really tolerance isn't the right word, it should be considered deserved equality. The act of tolerating is taking something that you naturally reject and building up a resistance to the effects it may have or your body or mind. This does not mean you now accept this as good or true, but merely have found a way to co-exist.

When talking about belief or religion we want to be talking about the truth. There can only be one truth, and that is fundamental to all religion. Where tolerance comes in is when we are able to co-exist with people who believe differently then we do. We do not need to accept their beliefs, but we need to accept them as humans and accept their right to believe. There is a pretty big difference, what is true for you needs to be for all.

How do you define tolerance? In your opinion is there a difference between tolerance and acceptance? Talk amongst yourselves..

Coffee Talk

The Importance of Being a Mother

There is power and strength contained within the title of "Mother". There is no greater role in our society or any society then that of a mother. They guide, they protect, they nurture, they correct us and make us the people we are. It is the choice of the child to listen or ignore, but there will always come a time when you look back and truly appreciate your mother's contribution to your life. Their life lessons, habits, rules, just seem to sneak into your subconscious and play a role in your adult life on a daily basis.

It was my mom that made it a grand event to go to the library on a weekly basis. We would walk home with a wagon filled with books and read every single one. It was a passion for reading that is still in my life to this day. She also taught me the importance of family, faith, saving money, and so many other things. Her contribution to my life is simply unfathomable, and as my wife and I raise our children I think heavily about the way we will affect them. What will we pass on to them? Their mother has so many incredible qualities; honesty, faith, passion, compassion, strength, creativity, and so on. She can juggle the entire household with ease, and always knows where we need to be. Unfortunately, we cannot decide what traits our children take with them, and which traits go unnoticed.

Question: What are some of the traits/qualities/ideals that your mother has passed on to you? Talk amongst yourselves…

Coffee Talk

Global Warming (again!)

I know we have talked about Global Warming before, but this topic just won't go away, so here are my latest thoughts on this topic.

If you are a person who is following the global warming discussion then you may be looking for a way to reduce your contribution to the problem. If you go to the EPA's website and click "What You Can Do", they give you 9 steps to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Change 5 Lights - Use energy star bulbs
2. Look to buy more Energy Star labeled products
3. Heat and Cool Smartly
4. Use better insulation
5. Use Green Power
6. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
7. Be Green in your yard
8. Use Water Efficiently
9. Spread the word

Now these are all good things to do, and they will undoubtedly cut down on your electric bill, but there is something greater that can be done. The major flaw in recommendations is the blind focus on carbon dioxide (CO2) when it has been suggested by several experts (Dr. James Hansen) that Carbon Dioxide is not the main cause the recent warming trends. The fact is that the main non-CO2 greenhouse gas contributor is methane. According to EarthSave, methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas then CO2. Methane is produced in small amounts by coal mines and landfills (please recycle), but the major contributor animal agriculture which produces more than 100 million tons of methane per year. About 85% of that production comes from the digestive processes of livestock.

This problem is starting to gain more attention, in February, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held a symposium to address this very problem. Henning Steinfeld of the FAO had this to say, "Extensive livestock production plays a critical role in land degradation, climate change, water and biodiversity loss".

The result of all of this is the new solution to Global Warming: "GO VEGETARIAN!"
Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

The Law of Attraction

Recently I was asked to watch The Secret by my wife, and it has me thinking about the law of attraction. The bases for the concept is that the thoughts you have attract goods, health, people, etc to you. You basically create your life through your thoughts, and it is your belief in the reality of those thoughts that actually make them a reality. You are sending your thoughts into the universe and the universe is adjusting to meet your request. The process comes back to the law of attraction because what you put out, positive or negative, will come back to you. This would mean that you can create your future by focusing on what you want and allowing the universe to deliver it to you.

While watching this video I was consistently thinking, where is God? Are these, in a way, prayer requests or are these people feeling that it is their own power that can create reality? I was always taught not to pray for money or houses or cars, so therefore I will ask the universe and not God for those material items. Is faith the same as focusing on your thoughts?

With any theory there are positive and negative aspect, and they should be evaluated thoroughly before faith is placed in them. My question tonight is have you seen The Secret and what are your thoughts on the law of attraction? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

This past week I received the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Policy, and immediately the cover story caught my eye; "21 Solutions to Save the World". Each solution is written by a different contributor, and is directed at a specific problem facing the world today. The most interesting aspect of the article is the 21 issues the chose to solve.

1. Dictators
2. Medicare for the Poor
3. Climate Change
4. Inequality
5. Religious Extremists
6. Gender Inequality
7. The Drug War
8. Russia's Dying Democracy
9. The Failure of Foreign Aid
10. A Forgotten Treaty
11. Oil Dependency
12. The War on Terror
13. Malnutrition
14. Anti-Americanism
15. Internet Security
16. The AIDS Pandemic
17. Illiberal Democracy
18. Malaria
19. Poverty
20. Nuclear Proliferation
21. Simple Solutions

In your opinion does this cover it, and why do you think these were chosen? What are the biggest issues a global level right now? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Legacy

With the recent passing of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. , I have spent some time reflecting on legacy and what is left behind when we are gone. You hear the phrase all the time, "I just want to leave a legacy". For most people, a large part of legacy is in the way we are perceived by others. Unlike Mr. Vonnegut, many people are not able to leave behind something as permanent as a novel or a painting, but we build our legacy based actions, accomplishment, and the words and thoughts of those who knew us. Each person you knew will remember you in a different way, is that legacy? I have seen it defined as something handed down or given to the next generation, is that legacy?

This past week a close family friend past away, and I had already written the paragraph above. She was 79, but, due to a condition she had had all her life, she lived her life as a six year old. As I drove to the wake I thought about her legacy, I thought about what she has passed on the next generation, and I thought about how I will remember her. She didn't have much to give, but she always had a smile on her face and a bow in her hair. At the wake they passed out bows to all of the females, and hand painted cards with the Guardian Angel Prayer typed upon them. Below the prayer was this sentence: "When people act more like angels, earth will be more like heaven." Can a smile or bow be a legacy or does it actions?

Several years ago I was given a book called "A Father Legacy", and inside there were a series of questions. The questions ranged from "Your fondest memory of ... to tell me a time when you...". Can the answers that I write in this book in my twenties be the legacy that I leave? As I write I feel it may be a small part of my legacy.

Question:
How often do you think about your legacy and the legacy of those who you have known? What do you want your legacy to be?

Coffee Talk

Money

This past week, for me at least, seems to have been all about money. First Sam Zell buys the Chicago Tribune Co., then you have Kerkorian offer $4.5 Billion for Chrysler, and then you have the multiple reports and stories about how badly the music industry is struggling (see the Music Minute below). It was last Saturday in the "Watch List" that I posted a New York Times article on the widening of the income gap. Money is always up for discussion, but it seems like a very relevant topic lately. Also this week my seven year old daughter wrote as persausive essay on "Why all children should be rich". In her essay she proposed that all children should be rich because then they will be able to buy houses and clothes, and every one will be happy. Now I suppose that I can only look at this issue from one side (the side without the money), but as I reflect on my life, money has never brought me happiness. When I think of money these are the words that come to my mind: pressure, survival, provider, flaw system of trade, and so on. I am sure that if Sam Zell was asked what words came to mind when he thought on money, the words would be completely different. Yet, as the costs good seems to rise without control, while my opinion of the value of money seems to decrease at the same rate.

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down to a higher god. Many things today owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer. " - Adolf Hitler

Basically, the beauty of this country is the ability to reach the heights of Sam Zell, or struggle for art like so many writers, musicians, and artists. You can be driven by passion, driven by money, or by any other number things, but the point is you have the freedom to choose what makes you happy.

Question: What drives you on a daily basis, and what makes you truly happy? Are they the same, and how does your opinion of money factor in? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Stem Cell Research: Pros vs Cons

This past week Dem. Governor Deval Patrick announced the he will work towards the reversal of the stem cell research restriction that his predecessor Mitt Romney had put in place. Gov. Patrick believes that the scientific community should have freedom so there “imagination and creativity can have the full range of its potential”. Romney’s restrictions were put in place to eliminate the mass farming of embryos. Stem Cell research is basically focusing on stem cells to gain a better understanding of how normal cells develop.

Pros:
1. The knowledge gained on normal cell development may help lead to a way to correct the path of cells gone wrong.

2. According to the National Institutes of Health, the pluripotnent stem cell could be a "renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis".

3. There is a primitive stem cell in cord blood that can grow new knee ligaments or elbow tendons. This is going to be used in sports medicine in the very near future.

Con:

1. The downside of these scientific advancements is always ethics. The same ethics that are often tossed aside in the name of progress. It is not so much the use of donated human embryos, but it is the potential abuse of the ability to create an embryo, leading to the mass production of embryos. I suppose it depends on which side of the abortion issue you stand on, but in my mind an embryo is a life. The mass production of human life to then extract cell and discard the remains.

Questions: The positives are monumental in impact as more individuals find themselves with these diseases, but do the ends justify the means? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Since the name of this section is "Coffee Talk", I thought I would talk about coffee this week. If you have read this blog before, then you have probably figured out that I love coffee. I consume approximately 8 to 10 cups (8 oz) everyday, and I have been on that pace for at least 10 years. In contrast, the average coffee drinker in the US consumes 3.2 cups per day. Here is a useful tool to help evaluate your total caffeine intake if you choose to drink other products. Using that tool, I consume 1,075mgs of caffeine each day.

What does this mean? As I search the internet for answers, I see a variety of studies for and against the consumption of coffee using phrases like antioxidant, heart disease, diabetes, moderate, and so on... Why can't I bring myself to open any of them? I don't want to know that something that I enjoy can be harmful to me. Maybe I should be writing about addiction and not just coffee. I open a site called CAFFEINE!, and read that the minimum lethal dose of caffeine is 3,200mgs. That would mean that I consume roughly 1/3 of the minimum lethal dose each day. In a recent interview with Barbara Walters, Hugo Chavez said he consumes 26 cups of coffee each day, which is roughly 2,795mgs of caffeine! (I just took another gulp of coffee) Also on the CAFFEINE! site, I found a list of symptoms associated a caffeine overdose, and here are my favorites:

muscle twitching
nervousness
paranoia
psychomotor agitation
rambling flow of thought and speech
rapid pulse
restlessness

Now I've tried many times to achieve a rambling flow of thought, and it has only been after the right amount of consumption that I am able to achieve the desired results. At least now I have validation for my efforts. Again, what does this mean, basically I need to cut back if I don't want to agitate my psychomotor.

In the comments section, use the useful tool to calculate your daily intake, list your mgs, your excuses, and talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment of The US Constitution

On the issue of the peoples right to bear arms, as with any debated topic, each side has chosen to focus on different pieces of the second amendment. Those in favor of "gun control" focus on the words "a well-regulated militia", and those opposed focus "the right if the people to keep and bear arms". One legal case that is frequently cited in relation to the second amendment and militia is U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The ruling in this clarified that the intent of the second amendment was to strengthen the effectiveness of the militia.

Other arguments, on both sides, always center around the word protection. People either want to protect their families and property by owning a gun, or they want to protect their families and property by removing the threat of the gun altogether.

Now we should clarify what will be meant by the phrase "gun control". We are not referring to the controlling and eliminating of illegal gun trafficking and distribution, and we have very little issue with waiting period and permits needed to purchase a gun legally. "Gun Control" has become the phrase used to advocate the banning of all guns.

So what is the best way to look at the issue of gun control? For starters, let's look at the Constitutional amendment and see what the actual writers had to say about it. Second, let's look at what the opinion has been throughout history since the Constitution leading up to today.

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”-Thomas Jefferson

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”-Thomas Jefferson's advice to Peter Carr, his nephew and ward, in a letter written in Paris in 1785-Aug-19, cited in the Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, p.318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country...”-James Madison

"The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson federalist papers "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." motto on thomas jefferson's seal [c. 1776]

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”-George Mason

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”-Noah Webster

“To disarm the people--that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.”-George Mason, founding father who led opposition to adoption of the US Constitution before the addition of the Bill of Rights

“A free people ought [...] to be armed [...]”-George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

“Free men have arms; slaves do not.”-William Blackstone (1723-1780), English jurist and professor of common law at Oxford

“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”-Andrew Fletcher (1655-1716), quoted by James Burgh (1714-1775), in "Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses," (London, 1774-1775)

“If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.”-Frederic Bastiat, The Law, Paris, 1850

"The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." US Supreme Court, US v Miller

Most of these previous quotes are found at this site. What's interesting is the last quote taken from the 1939 ruling of the US Supreme Court v Miller that has sparked this Coffee Talk.

I'm not sure why, but we were not able to find any creditable/historical quotes in favor of gun control. If anyone knows of any please post them in the comments section.

Basically, our founding fathers had placed a premium on personal liberties and freedoms, and those are the same liberties that need to hold close and not let go of simple because our needs have changed. The minute we let go of any of our freedoms is the minute that they take them all. Where do you stand on the issue of gun control? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Last week we saw the world premiere of the documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" on the Discovery channel. There were also many news stories published and hype created for this world premiere on the news. This was followed by an open discussion with the director and investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici, and leading researcher and author Dr. James D. Tabor of North Carolina at Charlotte answering questions from archeologists and religious leaders with Ted Koppel as moderator. The executive producer of this documentary was no other than James Cameron.

In this documentary, the Talpiot Tomb, or "Jesus Family Tomb" was said to be discovered in 1980 in Jerusalem by a construction crew building apartment complexes. In this tomb was said to contain 10 ossuaries, but the locations of only 9 are currently known. These ossuaries are said to have contained the remains of family members as was the custom in 1st century Jerusalem. On 6 of these 9 ossuaries are marked the words/names of "Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), Maria, Matia (Matthew), Yose (Joseph), Marimene e Mara (Mariamne, guessed to be Mary Magdalene), and Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah, son of Jesus)." The other 3 names were not mentioned in the documentary as I recall and are not talked about on the Discovery website that I found. Either they did not have names on the ossuaries, or they left that part out in the documentary.

The claim in the documentary is that the 10th ossuary has been found and contained the remains of James, Brother of Jesus. A Discovery documentary on his ossuary is going to be televised on March 28th @ 6:00am. The documentary on the "Tomb of Jesus" would help prove that this was Jesus' tomb that was found, but no solid evidence was proved to link that James' ossuary indeed came from the same tomb. There could be more evidence in James' documentary.

Experts said that these are very common names for that period with the exception of Mariamne. With these names, they had Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, concluded a high statistical probability the Talpiot Tomb is the Jesus Family Tomb. In this probability, he used the occurences of all the names and came up that there is a 600:1 probability that it is in fact the Tomb of Jesus and his family. This probability did include taking out Matia, or Matthew out of the equation since there is no mention of a Matthew directly related to Jesus in the Bible.

DNA tests were also conducted on pieces of remains still found in only two of the ossuaries, Jesus, son of Joseph and Mariamne's. These mitochondrial results concluded that the remains of these two individuals were not of the same family. Nuclear DNA results could not be done and since the remains in all of the ossuaries were sent for proper re-burial, no other tests could be done on other ossuaries.

So many questions and discussions have already taken place as to did Jesus have a family? Why would Matthew be buried with Jesus? Who is Mariamne and why is she in the tomb?, etc.

Here are the questions that Orange Alert has...

1.) Why is the life of Jesus and his family been portrayed as such a hot topic lately? With documentaries on Jesus and the way he was crucified, his family, films like The Passion and The DaVinci Code, and now this documentary.

2.) Why have a lot of the recent films and documentaries lately been concluding that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

3.) How will any of this be proven without detailed DNA and other analysis of all remains of the tomb?

4.) With all of the research on Jesus lately, does that contradict the faith of Christianity and his being the Son of God and does any of these scientific finding change faith-based religion?

5.) How many people think that they are attempting to tie research together on purpose "to sell the film" as quoted by Amos Kloner, Israeli archeologist, or that it's just a film for skeptics to "poke holes into the story" of Jesus and the beliefs that millions of people hold dear as claimed by Stephen Pfann, scholar at the University of the Holy Land?

Answer one, all or discuss any of these related topics. Please talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Culture, how is it defined?

Over one weekend in February (16th - 18th), everything that may have been unclear or undecided about NBA culture and more or less hip-hop culture has suddenly been decided by the media. Las Vegas holds large conventions and events frequently, and itself carries a stigma of organized crime, gambling, and questionable, if not illicit activities. In fact, Vegas is commonly known as "Sin City", but when there is a sudden influx of another "culture" everything changes. A recent article in the Las Vegas Sun painted this picture: "The stories were legion. A body hits the ground after falling from a Strip casino parking ramp in front of a hotel employee. Lines of men "wash" the sides of the MGM Grand with their urine. Scores of people get cab rides, then run out on the fare." The story goes on to say that the town was on edge, and several athletes (including Tracy McGrady) said that couldn't wait to get off of the strip because they feared what might happen. The Las Vegas police department reported 403 arrests and 4 shootings. Pacman Jones, who is not in the NBA and it is hard to claim that he listens to hip-hop without actually asking him, was involved in three of the four shootings.

Hip-hop culture, historically, has been defined by the "four pillars" of hip-hop, which are break dancing, rapping, graffiti, and deejaying. However, the themes and the stories told through the words of several rappers have rarely painted a simple picture as narrow as the four pillars. Take last year's hot duo, Clipse, most of their songs revovled around them dealing cocaine. However, I don't think they are really cocaine dealers. Just like a writer, a rapper can tell a story, but the degree to which it actually relates to their own life can vary. Besides the contributions of Clipse, 50 Cent, Ice Cube, etc., how do account for the positive message of Glue, Ugly Duckling, K-os, and others. How can hip-hop culture be defined by a small segment of people that caused problems in Las Vegas? Is this more of a race issue? How do you define culture? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

“The world is paying a heavy price for the instability created by globalization and unipolarity, and the United States is bearing most of the burden”

In the latest issue of “Foreign Policy”, Steven Weber, Naazeen Barma, Matthew Kroenig, and Ely Ratner have published an article entitled “How Globalization Went Bad”. They present their argument in three clear axioms:

1. Above a certain threshold of power, the rate at which new global problems are generated will exceed the rate at which old problems are fixed. It is basically the belief that with more power comes more responsibility, but can the U.S. handle more responsibility. Do we need more power?

2. In an increasingly networked world, places that fall between the networks are very dangerous places. In the global economic pictures there will be big players and little players, and those who are not allowed to play at all. It is the latter that will disrupt the global orgy.

3. Without a real chance to find useful allies to counter a superpower, opponents will try to neutralize power, by going under ground, going nuclear, or going "bad". Example Venezuela, North Korea, the idea is that these smaller powers will not be able to align with a bigger power and be forced into "facilitating the dark side of globalization".

The article goes on to discuss the threat of a global pandemic being brought to fruition by a forgotten nation. The solution, according to the article, is the emergences of another superpower to remove some of the burden on the shoulders on the U.S. It doesn't seem feasible to both openly trade with and police the same country. What do you think, does America need to take a lesser role in the global realm of business, politics, and security? What is your opinion of America's push toward a global economy while also maintaining unipolarity? Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Tim Hardaway's recent comments, when asked what he would think about having a homosexual teammate, have brought up an interesting conversation. His comment was as follows: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people,". If that wasn't enough he added this, "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." Hardaway's went on to say that he would ask that the player be removed from the team. That being said, I don't want to discuss homosexuality, free speech, or tolerance but I think this speaks more to the topic of discrimination. There are so many different forms of discrimination in society today, and many times it is not as clear as in this recent case. The interesting aspect of this case is the source of the discrimination, Hardaway, who would never want any form of discrimination or hatred aimed at him. I have heard the correlation made between what Hardaway is advocating and the way African-American's had been treated in the past. Basically, he is talking about the removal of a segment of people. I suppose you have to discuss the nature of homosexuality before you make that connection, but it is an interesting way to look at the comment.

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."

Hardaway has the right to say what he said, but where does this hatred stem from? What are the roots of discrimination, and why does each new generation continue this hatred while creating new categories hate? Is it fear, is it cultural differences, is it just plain old-fashioned stupidity? I'm not saying Hardaway is stupid, but if he does know that the United States is in the world then maybe he is stupid, and maybe that is why he has this hatred. Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

Generally, I've stayed neutral on this issue, but it is near ignorance to think that the choices that we make (cars, cleaning products, food, clothing, construction, fuels, etc.) have zero impact on the environment. The events of this past week have not necessarily changed my opinion or even my immediate actions, but it has given power to Al Gore, Global Warming 101, and all of the other individuals and organizations advocating a more "climate neutral lifestyle". On February 2nd, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued only their fourth assessment on the climate change in the last seventeen years. Their last report was issued in 2001, and according to the New York Times, they were 66 to 90% percent certain that humans activity had an effect on the climate. With this latest report, the IPCC have now stated that it is "very likely" (better then 90%) that human activities have been the main cause of warming over the last century. The report gives you a lot of scientific terminology to throw around, but it also can be boiled down to two key points. First, "the global climate is likely to warm 3.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit if carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice the levels of 1750, before the Industrial Revolution". Second, "It forecasts a rise of 7 to 23 inches by 2100 and concludes that seas will continue to rise for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century". These are two forecasts that we have heard many times before, but this is the first time that the name of science has been attached to these claims. Will this change the ways of American's ("The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country")? Will you be doing anything different because of the IPCC's report? Talk Amongst Yourselves...

Coffee Talk

America, post 9-11, is a very different America, and is on a pace to become something that would be appalling to it's founding fathers. I understand fear, I understand what our soldiers are experiencing (as much as I can through the various media outlets), I know their is need for heightened awareness, but this week Boston took it a little to far. Was it an overreaction, or was it a statement regarding the amount of power our government is prepared to use at a moments notice?

On January 31st, two men placed 38 "electronic devices" around the city of Boston with flashing images of "mooninites" from the Adult Swim cartoon "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". According to the Detroit Free Press, the devices were one foot tall and "resembled circuit boards with battery packs protruding". It was a publicity stunt, but in hands of Boston officials, it has become "electronic terrorism". The two men were arrested, but more importantly the bridges and subways were shut down, and the Coast Guard had stopped all water traffic. The alert of a bomb threat was sent through all the channels of the city.

Over the last three weeks similar boards have been placed in ten different cities, but this is the first time they have triggered a citywide terror alert. A comment in one of the articles regarding the was made by Jennifer Mason, “It’s almost too easy to be a terrorist these days, you stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city.”

Did Boston officials overreact, or can they be justified because we are at war? Should we take comfort in their ability to shut down a large city like Boston in time of "crisis", or should we consider it in direct opposition to our freedoms as Americans? Talk amongst yourselves, and then watch this!

Coffee Talk

Middle school can be a difficult time for many kids personally, socially, and academically. It is during this time that children become young adults, and it is truly life's first transitional period. Kids can be emotional, cruel, and extremely difficult to handle. School officials across the country have been working on various solutions to the issues facing our nations middle schools, and there are mixed opinions as to the potential results of these options.

The first option is extending elementary school to 8th grade, and allowing the students to stay in a more nurturing environment. A K-8 school would avoid the additional change in surrounding while maintaining the advancing curriculum of a middle school. An article this week in the New York Times tells the story of a frustrated sixth grader visiting his third grade teacher for encouragement during a lunch period. That same article uses the terms nurturing cocoon, and traumatic transitions. However, would this approach make the transition to high more "traumatic"? Would this affect the student's social skills, specifically their ability to communicate with teachers and students on a higher level? This type of format has been adapted in New York, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Kansas City. A recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University shows that this doesn't help the students academically, but I'm not sure if that is the ultimate goal.

The second option is extending high school to include 6th through 12th grades. This approach claims that the students will be more mentally and socially prepared for college, and this will allow them to focus on their life goals earlier then in a typical high school format. The administrators claim that students will thrive among the older role models. Unfortunately, this format has not been widely implemented, and thusly there is not a great deal of statistical data to evaluate. There has been 38 6-12 schools opened in New York City since 2002. Should 6th graders walk the same halls as 12th graders? How will this effect extracurricular activities, will all students have the same opportunities to participate?

Questions:
Does a change need to be made to the middle school format?
Which option seems most beneficial to the students and the teachers involved, and why?
Talk amongst yourselves...

Coffee Talk

The general public seems to understand symbols before concepts and philosophies. Symbols have long been used to convey ideas, rely messages, and warn of dangers. One of these symbols was recently in the news because a team of highly educated scientists felt the need to alert the public that there is a growing threat of nuclear war. Is this necessary or offensive?

The Doomsday Clock:

Since 1947 the board of director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have maintain the clock from the offices at the University of Chicago. It is interesting to look through the historic reason why the clock has been adjusted, but what is the purpose?

Here is a great graph I found here, and you can find the source data there as well or you can go here to verify the moves.

The point of this symbol is to bring awareness of the many nuclear threats facing our nation, but how much can we value the perception of these threats when communicated by this group of individuals. Is it not our right to evaluate for ourselves the level of threat we are facing?

Talk amongst yourselves...