Lottery Post Journal

Water or Coke

I have no idea if these things are true, but I believe in drinking enough water every day, so I'll post it despite the fact that I have not researched it myself.  It may well be true — I would not be surprised.


  1. 75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated. (Likely applies to half the world population.)
  2. In 37% of Americans, the thirst mechanism is so weak that it is mistaken for hunger.
  3. Even MILD dehydration will slow down one's metabolism as 3%.
  4. One glass of water will shut down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100% of the dieters studied in a University of Washington study.
  5. Lack of water, the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue.
  6. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.
  7. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen or on a printed page.
  8. Drinking 5 glasses of water daily decreases the risk of colon cancer by 45%, plus it can slash the risk of breast cancer by 79%., and one is 50% less likely to develop bladder cancer. Are you drinking the amount of water you should drink every day?


  1. In many states the highway patrol carries two gallons of Coke in the trunk to remove blood from the highway after a car accident.
  2. You can put a T-bone steak in a bowl of Coke and it will be gone in two days.
  3. To clean a toilet: Pour a can of C oca-Cola into the toilet bowl and let the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean. The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous china.
  4. To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a rumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola.
  5. To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away the corrosion.
  6. To loosen a rusted bolt: Apply a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes.
  7. To bake a moist ham: Empty a can of Coca-Cola into the baking pan, wrap the ham in aluminum foil, and bake. Thirty minutes before ham is finished, remove the foil, allowing the drippings to mix with the Coke for a sumptuous brown gravy.
  8. To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of Coke into the load of greasy clothes, add detergent, and run through a regular cycle. The Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains. It will also clean road haze from your windshield.


  1. The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. It will dissolve a nail in about four days. Phosphoric acid also leaches calcium from bones and is a major contributor to the rising increase of osteoporosis.
  2. To carry Coca-Cola syrup! (the concentrate) the commercial trucks must use a hazardous Material place cards reserved for highly corrosive materials.
  3. The distributors of Coke have been using it to clean engines of the trucks for about 20 years.

Now the question is, would you like a glass of water or a glass of Coke?

Global Warming: 'Ecochondria of the pampered rich'

I love that headline, which is actually a quote I stole from the terrific opinion piece below.

It is written by Philip Stott, an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK, and the editor of the Journal of Biogeography for the last 18 years.

It is wonderful to see the cavalcade of noted scientists no longer afraid to step out of the shadows to denounce the global warming myth.

All the liberals out there who have been foaming at the mouth over SUVs and oil companies are seemingly bewildered over the sudden release of the truth — bewildered either by the fact that their ruse failed, or because they were so gullible to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.

Global Warming Is Not a Crisis


March 9, 2007 — From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.

In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.

But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.

History and Science

Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to "crisis" with warming.

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of the 20th century than during the second. At around a couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of much larger positive and negative changes locally. The risk from global warming is less than that from other factors (primarily geological).

The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed during the second half of the 20th century, yet agricultural output increased markedly. The impact on disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like malaria, are not so much a matter of temperature as of poverty and public health. Malaria remains endemic in Siberia, and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to cold is generally more dangerous.

So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming.

What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans.

Indeed the system requires no external driver to fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of ocean disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the sun, water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth remembering that modelers even find it difficult to account for the medieval warm period.

The Real Crisis

Our so-called "crisis" is thus neither a product of current observations nor of projections.

But does it matter if global warming is a "crisis" or not? Aren't we threatened by a serious temperature rise? Shouldn't we act anyway, because we are stewards of the environment?

Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about "saving the planet." What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.

The global warming "crisis" is misguided. In hubristically seeking to "control" climate, we foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable change. There is no way we can predictably manage this most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. The inconvenient truth is that "doing something" (emitting gases) at the margins and "not doing something" (not emitting gases) are equally unpredictable.

Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.

We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The "crisis" is the global warming political agenda, not climate change.

Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography.

Prominent Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming

The Global Warming charade is beginning to crumble like a house of cards.  Go back and read my Blog.  You'll see I have been saying that human-caused Global Warming is a load of crap long before any of this came to light.

I, and others like me, took a stand on this, despite the fact that all the mainstream media and "popular" people say I/we're nuts.  Liberals and the mainstream media elitists are often wrong on anything related to the environment and/or society, and each time it happens these people will never admit they were wrong.

I do not expect to get anything other than the satisfaction that I did not cave to intellectual dishonesty.  It would be nice to hear people fess up when they're wrong, but I'll settle for personal satisfaction.

Don't get me wrong: it's not over yet.  This is just the beginning of the destruction of the Global Warming myth, but it's important to watch what happens as it unfolds.  Watch how people react, especially the ones who are running around like Chicken Little, and let's see if they grow up and start using logic to guide them, instead of pop culture and emotion.  My guess is that they will just stop talking about Global Warming, never admit their severe error and lack of judgment, and will move on to the next hysterical movement.

To show the extent that it's not over, you can click over to the source of the article, using the link at the bottom of this blog entry.  You'll see the liberal Canada-based newspaper (The National Post) refer to this leading scientist, and other scientists like him, as "Deniers".  They might as well call them "outcasts", which is what that term is meant to invoke.

The paper uses the "deniers" term in order to say, "We're forced to admit that scientists are coming out against global warming because there are too many to ignore anymore, but we're going to label them as wackos because we think they're wrong."  How irresponsible!

The scientist named in the story was one of the first people to start sounding the alarm over "Global Warming".

This is an example of a real scientist -- i.e., a scientist that uses logic, reason, and evidence to guide his actions, and does not see anything wrong with admitting he was wrong.

Allegre's second thoughts

Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists.

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.

Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions.

For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeler of the early solar system.

Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters."

The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester CO2.

His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris's Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

Hillary turnin' on the charm!

I knew that Hillary is a fake, but this is ridiculous!  Check out this clip of her speaking at a southern church service.  She sounds like she has a corncob stuck in her back teeth.

The accent is so completely bad and fake that I would have thought the audience would be laughing instead of clapping.  It switches in and out of a "sothern drawl" even within the same sentence.  Funny!

Great analysis of Drudge and the new media

This is the best succinct analysis of why the old media is fading and new media, led by the Drudge Report, is flurishing.

** There is a real nugget in here:  Spot-on analysis of the what the old media should have done a long time ago in order to prevent this all from happening.

This is a must read!

Silicon Insider: Surfing Upstream

The Drudge Report's Impact on America

March 1, 2007 — Tuesday, just after the New York Stock Exchange bounced in and out of the 500 point pothole, an interesting item appeared on the blog site for the U.S. News & World Report. In it, senior writer James Pethokoukis asked the interesting question: "Did the Drudge Report help tank the stock market?"

In fact, there were a number of other, more likely, causes, ranging from Alan Greenspan's warning that morning about a possible impending recession, falling durable orders and housing sales, rumors of China instituting a capital gains tax, etc. But still, Pethokoukis's question was intriguing.

As he noted, Matt Drudge has enormous impact both on America's leaders, as well as its journalists, both groups regularly clicking in on his web page throughout the day (it's been my home page for the last five years).

Drudge first made his name breaking much of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and though he was vilified by the mainstream media then, he's been a must-read ever since. With his site, his radio show and his carefully constructed Walter Winchell look, complete with fedora, Matt Drudge, though he has gained some legitimacy, remains the great news source that no one talks about.

Strictly speaking, the Drudge Report is not a blog, but an aggregator site. That is, he and his team comb multiple news sources of their own — on the web, wire services, blogs — around the world and then post links to them. Part of the appeal of the Drudge Report is that it is one of the last refuges of good old-fashioned tabloid headlines.

On a given day, the Drudge Report may contain thirty or forty sentence-long headlines, the most important ones in red, all under a single major headline in large, bold type. On the really big breaking stories, especially the ones still emerging, Drudge will even post a flashing siren on the screen . . .and you better believe every journalist in America notices. So do a lot of other people: the Drudge Report can get 20 million hits per day, and is currently running more than 4 billion hits per year.

All of this is back story to what Pethokoukis thinks may have happened on Tuesday. It seems that former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan gave a speech in Hong Kong on Sunday in which he said, reasonably, that this being one of the longest economic expansions in recent years inevitably certain countervailing forces were growing that would inevitably lead us into the next recession. In particular, said Greenspan, U.S. profit margins were beginning to stabilize, and that was a classic indicator of an economy that had peaked — suggesting the beginning of a recession in late 2007, perhaps 2008.

Not exactly earth-shattering. A lot of people are saying the same thing — heck, you read the same thing here a couple weeks ago. Greenspan wasn't saying anything shocking; on the contrary, he was being his typical prudent and opaque self. You can turn on any cable financial show right now and hear a lot more apocalyptic predictions.

Indeed, the story was so unthrilling that it appears only AP covered it — and, contrary to its current reputation, actually managed to write a balanced and objective story. And, as you might expect, it produced little more than a shrug from the financial markets.

But that's when Drudge stepped in. For no obvious reason, he decided to link to the two day old AP story. He then attached one of his classic scare headlines: "Greenspan warns of likely U.S. recession." Personally, I love stuff like that — it harkens back to the good old days of newspapering and the vastly underrated age of yellow journalism — and if the viewer chose to read the term 'imminent' into Drudge's words, and then link through to the AP story . . .well, bully for Matt. That's his job, and he does it better than anybody.

But Pethokoukis's item, and the story behind it got me thinking about the nature of the news in the Internet Age.

One thing I've noticed in my own behavior — and most other folks I know who spend their days sitting near a computer (i.e., almost everyone) is that we are in a perpetual race to get to the news as early as possible. You can understand this attitude amongst, say, day traders, for whom timing in everything. And yet, in a sense, we are all day traders now, wanting the news — especially the important, breaking news — the instant it occurs. The result is a behavior that I can only describe as "surfing upstream". That is, we surf the cable stations on television even as we race around the net, trying to capture the latest update the instant it appears . . .and we are frustrated and furious over any delay.

The problem is that in going this far up the news cycle, we are also usually by-passing all of the standard intermediators that we normally depend upon to do our filtering for us. Some of this is understandable: the closer we get to the actual news events themselves the more obvious it becomes just how biased the coverage has been in the past. Needless to say, that's led to a lot of disenchantment with the traditional media. And rightly so.

Yet, by surfing ever further upstream, we go past not only analysis to news to breaking news, but all of the way to the raw information streaming off the event in real time. Think of it as a curve that goes infinite as it approaches the asymptote of the actual event itself: Downstream, in the world of long, leisurely feature stories and news analysis, the current is wide and slow and fairly predictable. But up at the source, information and data is blasting out of spillway like an immense firehose; all is confusion, energy and chaos.

Most of have neither the time nor the inclination to navigate against this torrent; yet, that is precisely where most of us want to be. The result is a paradox, and one that is rapidly destroying traditional media.

Put simply: we want the news as it happens, but we also want it to be intermediated by some sort of objective, professional news filter. The Internet, cell phones and digital cameras have gotten us unprecedentedly close to the real-time unfolding of news events around the world. But only rudimentary institutions — notably the blogosphere — have yet appeared to deal with the problem of filtration. Thus, our current behavior: channel surfing cable news, dropping into places like the Drudge Report fifteen times per day, and bouncing around the Web to the blogs we trust the most.

It also suggests why the traditional media are in such serious trouble. They have not only read the problem wrong, they have read it exactly wrong.

At the dawn of the Web, of cable news, and of people like Matt Drudge, newspapers, network television and news magazines, realizing that they could no longer compete in terms of timeliness, decided to go the opposite direction into feature stories, opinion and analysis. The result, as we've seen over the last decade has been what can only be described as a desperate rear-guard battle by the traditional media. Watching circulation, then ad revenues fall, they have mostly responded by cutting back on staff. Veteran reporters and editors have been given golden parachutes, newsroom staffs have been slashed, and young reporters simply haven't been hired.

The result? I get a call every few days essentially offering one of the local Bay Area papers to me at 1958 subscription prices. Meanwhile, after years of disparaging Drudge and the bloggers (a job now assumed by the New Yorker), newspapers and magazines have now decided to imitate them. It's profitable, but it still misses the mark

The message coming from us upstream surfers; from those millions of people who read Drudge every day — and who may have almost thrown us into a real recession — and from those tens of millions of bloggers out there linking like crazy to a handful of breaking news stories; is not that we need fewer news filters, but that we need more. The problem with what happened on Tuesday was not the presence of Matt Drudge, but the fact that there aren't more folks like him, offering a wide range of snarky, mischievous and fun headlines.

If newspapers could do it over again, they should have sold off their physical assets, hired more reporters, editors and freelancers at a lower initial salary, opened more news bureaus around the world (if only in the form of solitary stringers working out of their apartments) instead of shutting them down, and demanded more hard news reporting from their reporters and a lot less editorializing and analysis.

If that sounds counterintuitive, so is the entire history of high tech. Every time a threatened industry has tried to survive by adopting the new paradigm it has failed. The only solution is to come up with an even newer paradigm of your own.

That's what Matt Drudge did, and now it seems he can move the entire world economy. When was the last time a New York Times headline did that?