Questions for John Brennan (II): About Those DRONES

Should drones like this Predator even be allowed in U.S. skies, given a GAO report that expressed doubts  about their unreliable performance and sense-and-avoid technology that could avoid collisions? It’s also been found in tests that they can be electronically ‘hijacked’!

Rachel Maddow in her Tuesday night show came forward with pointed questions on the use of drones and targeted drone kills that “keep her up at night”. She observed that these questions were originally put to John Brennan by Dem Senator Ron Wyden. Basically the questions can be summarized, as Rachel put it, with: “Can the President order you dead? How do they determine who’s the bad guy?”

This is germane, irrespective of WHO is in the White House. As a nation ruled by laws (and Obama is a former Constitutional law professor), we cannot have the executive branch doing anything it wants, without parameters. Simply declaring an American an “enemy combatant” and hence invoking a license to kill is not good enough and one could argue it violates precepts inherent in the Constitution – including the right to trial by one’s peers before execution. Hence, Rachel’s questions weren’t spawned in vacuo.

Her questions are then as follows, based on Sen. Wyden’s written questions to Brennan:

1) How much evidence does the President need to determine that a particular American can be lawfully killed?

And the ones that "keep Rachel up at night":

2) Does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender before killing them?

3) Does this obligation change if the President’s determination that a particular American is a valid target has not been publicly announced or publicly reported?

As Rachel put it:

"Think about that. If you’re an American citizen and the President is going to kill you, do you have the right to give yourself up instead so you don’t get killed?”


And: “How do you know you should do that if the President’s decision to kill you is a secret decision that nobody ever tells you?”

Brennan’s answers yesterday were not particularly awe- inspiring and basically could be summarized with the catchall: “I’ll get back to you on that.” Let us hope he does, since currently the U.S. government's position is that it declines on national security grounds to declassify the full legal justification for its covert drone attacks. This can mean only one of two things: 1) they have no genuine legal justification that can withstand hard scrutiny, or 2) there are inflammatory 'justifications' embedded that will have the entire American Left on their case, as well as the International Court of Law in The Hague. (Interestingly, btw, it is the Senate Democrats that pressed Brennan for more openness and clarity, while the Repukes chastised him for possibly giving away too much. Methinks the Reeps are ok with their future prez being able to kill "socialists, leftists, communists" at will like Hitler did with his own methods.)

More daunting a question – when configured with the previous ones, is:

4) Are there any geographic limitations on the intelligence’s community’s authority to use lethal force against Americans? (Do any intelligence agencies have the authority to carry out lethal operations inside the United States?)

Some background here:

Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their book ‘The Untold History of the United States’ note on p. 572 that:

“Pakistani press reports over three years (2006 to 2008) killed over 700 civilians to only 14 terrorists or 50 civilians to one terrorist”. The authors note the ratio was lowered somewhat (to 15:1) after Pakistani photographer Noor Behram held a graphic 2011 exhibition in London, of 27 drone air strikes.”

Such results helped explain the radicalization of Muslims in Pakistan given 97% viewed drones negatively according to the authors (p. 573) while the number who saw the U.S. as an enemy climbed from 64% in 2009 to 74% in 2012. (Ibid.) Hence, the evidence supports the notion that we are creating more terrorists rather than de-populating them

Adding fuel to the fire is the recent news report (ABC, Feb. 6th) that the U.S. has a drone base in Saudi Arabia from which drone strikes have been launched into 6 countries. This is unsettling. Recall the 9/11 blowback from al Qaeda was based on using Saudi Arabia as a base for U.S. operations in the Gulf War.. Thus, the 9/11 attacks were blowback (according to author Chalmers Johnson, in his book Blowback) for defiling the holiest Muslim nation - the ancestral home of the Wahabbi sect and the host nation for the holiest Muslim shrine of Mecca. Johnson basically attributed the 9/11 blowback to U.S. foreign policy, which antagonized too many groups over decades. Stone and Kuznick in their own book, essentially concur with this assessment.

Stone and Kuznick also note the near universal criticism that drones are “a cowardly form of warfare” even quoting the Thailand Nation newspaper (p. 576) that these aerial robots are merely used to "satisfy the lily –livered need to eavesdrop kill and destroy without the slightest chance of reciprocation”.


Morally this troubled Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair who: “tried to curb drone attacks and other CIA covert activities believing them a blot on America’s reputation” (p. 577)

He was replaced by retired Lt. Gen. James Clapper in 2010.

The latest issue of TIME (Feb. 11) in its drone cover story, notes (p. 30) that the UK Bureau Of Investigative Journalism estimates that up to 891 civilians were killed in Pakistan since 2004 by drone strikes. TIME goes on to note that Brennan has argued that drone attacks are lawful under a 2001 authorization that allows “use of force” for those responsible for the 9/11 attacks – but technically all those perps are dead and gone including Osama bin Laden. Hence, one can argue that the authorization for the use of the drones is now expired.

Beyond that the continued use of such attacks presents the dangerous element of unintended consequences and expanded use beyond that originally intended. This has been the argument made by Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU. Interestingly, on January 24 the UN announced a special investigation into civilian deaths arising from drone attacks.

But  the radicalizing nature of drone attacks goes far beyond the immediate killing to their unsettling and pathological effects on targeted populations’ psyches. (By ‘targeted population I mean all of those affected if a drone is covering x square miles and its ominous noise is being received as a kind of inflicted terror in its own right.) People quoted in the ABC News report, for example, reported the constant anxiety (as well as sleeplessness) in their own homes induced from the incessant whine of the drones circling outside. Imagine - if you will - the Chinese putting thousands of these fuckers in OUR skies and monitoring us every second then justifying kills based on their own judicial precepts. Would you not go ape shit? I believe most 'Muricans would reach for their Bushmasters or AKs.

We know there’ll likely be over 3.5 million drones in operation in U.S. skies by 2017, so what are they all going to be doing? Perhaps the Predator drones will be mandated to kill U.S. citizens for any number of reasons, and not necessarily by an Executive decision. A disturbng case cited in TIME (p. 32) is that of a North Dakota Sheriff who in June, 2011, called in a Predator drone from a local Air Force Base to hunt for three men believed associated with some missing cows. The drone spotted the men and could have killed them on the spot with a Hellfire missile, but ascertained they were unarmed, so they were just arrested. But who's to say this couldn't have suddenly gone south on another occasion? Three dead guys and they may not even know why they've been vaporized.

 Hell, maybe a hard core Tea Party repuke like Marco Rubio is in power and he mandates the CIA to off all JFK researchers plumbing into the assassination who are digging into why the files weren’t released as scheduled. Or maybe this guy of Cuban descent doesn’t want us mucking around into Luis Posada’s terror background and connections to the Bay of Pigs Brigade 2506. We don’t know unless the parameters for targeted kills are judicially spelled out. Maybe a hard core fundie like Paul (Moron) Broun is elected Prez and has commandeered all atheists and evolutionists be drone-killed for promoting ideas and “theories from the pit of Hell”. We don’t know! Not with the flimsy and vague criteria as given, or rather not given.

Oh, as a sideline, I had to laugh hard and long at a remark in the recent TIME article on drones (Feb. 11, p. 28), when the author noted he was pulled up by critics for using the word “drone”. As he put it (p. 29):

“I’ve been corrected and upbraided by drone users and manufacturers, military and civilian, for failing to use terms like ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ or ‘unmanned aircraft system’ or ‘remotely piloted vehicle’. While technically accurate these terms have a clumsy, euphemistic feel"

Give me a break, already! Again, these sort of complaints about using direct language is part of why American brains are now so deformed and irrational, and incapable of coherent argument. Hell, they’ve been gutted by the substitution of collateral language (see the book by the same title).

But let's return to the core issue here: Killing people in other countries with which we are not at war. This again shows me that this nation - to regain its moral footing - needs to return to congressional declarations of war. If there is no such declaration, then NO ....you cannot launch ersatz wars, nor can we have any more "wars" such as VietNam and Iraq  based on idiotic "resolutions". I would go even further, and say unless taxes are mandated to pay for the declared war, it isn't on. Period! We cannot continue to exploit our own loose interpretation of international law and order to make ourselves policeman of the world with no consequences.

Rachel in her Thursday night show cited the main theme of the (1978) Church Committe Report and I quote from it:

“The evidence establishes that the United States was implicated in several assassination plots. The Committee believes that, short of war, assassination is incompatible with American principles, international order and morality. It should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy.”

This led Gerald Ford to issue an Executive Order banning assassinations.

Indeed, one can make the case, as I did earlier, that targeted assassinations in other nations is a counterproductive foreign policy in that it succeeds in creating more terrorists than it diminishes! It also erodes the moral basis of the nation and exposes it as an enclave of hypocrisy. For example, why haven’t right wing terrorists been targeted to the same extent? How the fuck is it that Luis Posada Carriles is still walking around alive and not dead from a Hellfire missile, while assorted accused other Americans (e.g. Anwar al-Alwaki) have been offed? Has there been the same degree of justification for the latter kills, as for the terrorist bone fides for Posada? I don’t believe so!

Add to that all the dead civilians as collateral damage and we’re really on shaky moral, legal grounds.


As Sen. Wyden noted last night on Rachel: Americans have a right to know if and when a President wants to kill them. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Right wing Alpha 66 terrorist like Luis Posada Carriles, or a run of the mill al-Qaeda tool like al-Awaki.

Wyden’s other ancillary point is equally crucial: that laws need to be public, not kept secret or private. We are either a society and a nation of laws and accountability or we’re no different from the Nazis with their special “Reich laws”.

We better decide and soon if we're going to continue to take the easy, lazy (I'd add cowardly) and expeditious path that leads to perdition, or if we will adhere to the American principles of yesteryear, so well enunciated in Kennedy's American University ('Pax Americana') speech in June, 1963. It's our choice and we better damned sure make the right one!

Questions to Ask John Brennan(I): About Those JFK Files

The arch-terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, harbored in Miami for a number of years. We need to know also his role in the CIA-engineered bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off Barbados in October, 1976.


As former Assistant CIA Director John Brennan gets set to be grilled in his now (CIA Director) confirmation hearings, some questions need to come front and center. I will deal with several of the main ones in this and a subsequent blog. I believe this is crucial because Brennan was Assistant  CIA Director when the Bushie torturers were running amuck and the stage was being set to create even more terrorists with drone strikes that often took out civilians, women, kids. Never mind Obama’s often saying “we need to put this behind us” – the moral tenor of a genuinely moral nation demands accountability and responsibility.  If we ignore that, or let it pass out of expediency, we're no better than the Third Reich.


So let me begin with question 1: If confirmed, are YOU going to release the remaining JFK assassination files – especially the ones on George Joannides which would show conclusively how Lee Oswald was being played as a patsy?

This is especially germane now, as the news has come forth (Jan. 13, in assorted AP releases to dozens of papers) that two of Robert F. Kennedy’s offspring, Rory and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. related to Charlie Rose in an interview (conducted at the AT&T Performing Arts Center in Dallas) that their dad never bought into the Warren Commission Report. According to Robert Kennedy Jr., his father thought “the Warren Commission which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone was a ‘shoddy piece of craftsmanship” and he added that he too questioned the report.

Well, I mean, seriously – WHO wouldn’t? 200 material witnesses never called to testify, including: the reporter who found the alleged sniper’s nest, the woman who saw Officer J.D. Tippitt shot and by a heavy set short man – not Oswald, a soldier who felt the air percussion of a bullet whiz by as he stood with his camera on the grassy knoll, and at least five witnesses, including an Air Force officer – that observed an Oswald double.

Then we have the added poppycock of a supposed bullet making seven wounds in two men and emerging pristine or nearly so, on a Parkland Hospital stretcher. Then we had the spectacle of a bullet-pocked limo being disassembled and dispatched to Ohio and the brain disappearing between Parkland in Dallas, and Bethesda. Add to that an alleged assassin's rifle (6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano) which had to be substituted for to try to replicate the alleged shots in WC trials, since the purported original had shims out of whack in azimuth - so couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! How many coincidences have to occur before people are given credit for some basic common sense?

So, no, the Warren Commission was never set up as a “government commission” but as LBJ’s creature, to enable his full oversight-control and to provide an expedient political resolution by which assorted covert players and special interests could all wipe their paws clean. The nation, and especially the power brokers, could then  move on without getting into messy conspiracies, made especially easy after Oswald was shot and killed.

In the aftermath, those of us in deep politics also were aware that because Bobby never bought into the Warren hogswill, he sought independent outlets to do their own research. Through contacts assisted by Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, he met with French Intelligence who provided their own report that later emerged in 1968 as the book ‘Farewell America’ written under the pseudonym of’ James Hepburn’. Readers can access the book here: http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html


After Bobby was himself assassinated in June 1968, CIA and other black ops sought to tar the book and its basis, as they have done the past 45 odd years with all other rigorous works disclosing conspiracy.

This is why getting hands on the CIA's  Joannides files is so very important, especially in this 50th anniversary year. We’ve waited too long as it is and the American people deserve the truth concerning what was effectively a coup d’etat which saw the takeover of the U..S. and its executive branch by a massive Military Industrial complex and national security state.

Those of us in the research community also know that most of the "Oswald-Castro did it" tricks emerged at the time George Johannides was the Chief of Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami . Almost all his energy was directed to: a) implicating Oswald in the assassination by a strategy of "sheepdipping" (see John Newman's excellent 'Oswald and the CIA') and b) processing disinformation from pseudo -double agents and deliberate false sources to implicate Castro, the Soviets, Oswald or all three.

The entire effort was to set up assorted straw men to take the eyes off the real culprits, and most of us believe the CIA was a key player – certainly in the subsequent cover up and disinformation campaign. One of the most recent disinfo efforts incarnated in Brian Latell’s book: 'Castro’s Secrets: The CIA and Cuba’s Intelligence Machine'. It bears the veneer of some new insider info, but in fact is merely another in a long line of CIA DISINFO, churned out over the years, and supported by CIA assets and networks to try to convince the American people there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination and Lee Oswald was the lone gunman.

We also know some enclaves of the entertainment industry are part of the disinformation process, as confirmed by the plan to televise a 13 -part HBO series later this year (produced by Tom Hanks) that will attempt to bolster Vince Bugliosi's obsessive hack baloney in his 1600+ page "Rewriting History' that Oswald acted alone. Has Hanks had CIA assistance, (as well as Bugliosi’s) in creating his 13- part bull pockey? We don’t know, but what we DO know is that the CIA had agents seeded in the news media for decades, putatively acting as “journalists” (actually as anti-conspiracy 'gate-keepers'), and documented by Kathryn Olmstead in her book Challenging the Secret Government (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996)

In the midst of all this BS all we ask is that Brennan, if and when he becomes Director, release those files!
Brennan’s answers are also important given the National Archives basically told JFK Assassination researchers to go take a long walk on a short pier, (see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/national-archives-to-jfk-file-seekers.htmlafters) seeking specific records mandated for release.

The records were originally requested by the nonprofit Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC), will now remain secret until at least 2017, when the 1992 JFK Records Act mandates public release of all assassination files in the government’s possession. Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, writing a book about the impact of JFK’s assassination on American politics, remarked after the National Archives(June, 2012) refusal to release files this year :

“This is a deeply disappointing decision that deprives everyone of a fuller understanding of the JFK assassination The 50th anniversary of that terrible event is the perfect opportunity to shed more light on the violent removal of a president. This adds to the widely held public suspicion that the government may still be hiding some key facts about President Kennedy’s murder.”

Hence, the main question we need at least one spined Senator to put to Brennan.

A second ancillary question is whether Brennan plans to release the files concerning the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in October, 1976 off Barbados’ SW coast. All other existing files, including from Venezuelan intelligence, point to CIA involvement and featuring hired anti-Castro thugs from Alpha 66 – a notorious Miami bunch that has worked in league with the CIA for decades . According to a secret CIA cable dated Oct. 14, 1976, intelligence sources in Venezuela relayed information about the Cubana Airlines bombing that tied in Alpha 66 creator Orlando Bosch, who had been visiting Venezuela, and Posada, who then served as a senior officer in Venezuela’s intelligence agency, DISIP.


The Oct. 14 cable said Bosch arrived in Venezuela in late September 1976 under the protection of Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, a close Washington ally who assigned his intelligence adviser Orlando Garcia “to protect and assist Bosch during his stay in Venezuela.”

On his arrival, Bosch was met by Garcia and Posada, according to the report. Later, a fundraising dinner was held in Bosch’s honor. “A few days following the fund-raising dinner, Posada was overheard to say that, ‘we are going to hit a Cuban airplane,’ and that ‘Orlando has the details,’” the CIA report said. Meanwhile, those of us living in Barbados had no remote notion of the bloody act to come, nor of the U.S. complicity in it, or that the same Cuban renegades whose associates (from the Bay of Pigs invasion)  conspired in the JFK hit were part of it. The CIA Report went on to read:


“"Following the 6 October [1976] Cubana Airline crash off the coast of Barbados, Bosch, Garcia and Posada agreed that it would be best for Bosch to leave Venezuela. Therefore, on 9 October, Posada and Garcia escorted Bosch to the Colombian border, where he crossed into Colombian territory.”

Note in the preceding the sanitizing of the language, the use of "crash" instead of bombing, or what we call "collateral language". Warren Hinckle and William Turner note in their excellent book, ‘Deadly Secrets: The CIA-Mafia War Against Castro and the Assassination of JFK’ (p. 384, Thunders Mouth Press, 1992) go on to note that:

“Two men who had deplaned in Barbados, Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo Lusano, were interrogated after joking about the bombing in a Barbados taxicab. The two were employed by Luis Posada…and confessed that Posada and (Orlando) Bosch had supplied them with two bombs, which they planted on the Cubana aircraft.”

The authors added  that “the CIA hand in the terrorist destruction of the Cubana airliner materialized two weeks later” when a CIA double agent named Ignacio Rodriguez-Mena blew the whistle on them, evidently enraged as he might have been on the flight except his wife was late arriving at the departure terminal. Interestingly, Rodriguez -Mena was also the person former CIA spook Latell tried to implicate as sending a hidden signal to off Kennedy, back in 1963.  Kennedy's own words in a Nov. 18, 1963 Miami speech:  "the small band of conspirators" was to be the "green light" for a 'go'. Retrospective vendetta? Who knows?  

But researcher James Douglass has exposed this subterfuge in his book ( JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters , p. 251:

“The CIA, by reversing the meaning of Kennedy's speech to motivate its own hired assassin, created a dogma of disinformation that it would disseminate for decades.....that the Miami speech was meant as an encouragement for murder, not dialogue".

THIS is why we need answers, otherwise we will continue to inhabit a fool's paradise where the elites spout bromides about "freedom" but the national security interests can do whatever....whenever.

For a solid account of the Cubana Airliner bombing (including a video) and why no one should ever believe squat on what the CIA or its lackeys has to say about Castro being involved in the JFK assassination, go to:

http://morallowground.com/2012/10/06/on-this-day-1976-the-bombing-of-cubana-airlines-flight-455/

Creation Via the Big Bang? How About I Call Bollocks?

Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles ( Θ  and φ) which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it.


It seems our indefatigable fundie creationist is now at it again, trying to link the "Big Bang" to Genesis 1:1 by asserting (like the Pope did to Stephen Hawking, as reported in Hawking's book, 'A Brief History of Time') that it is "the moment of creation". Hardly!

Instead, with the given data we have, a more powerful assertion can be made that the big bang is actually only one of gazillions of initiated cosmi all of which are integrated into one Multiverse (see image). Moreoever, all such cosmi have originated or been incepted spontaneously - via quantum fluctuations.

The fundie's claim that:

"Rather than disproving creation, the big bang theory reinforces the idea that the universe began at a specific point in time"

Therefore amounts to total doggerel and codswallop! (Another interesting aspect is that barely two years ago this same fundie-creationist was demonizing the Big Bang as contradicting creation by deity! Well, he can't have it both ways!) . Anyway, let's first examine the Multiverse theory to show why and how it works as well as fits the observations.

Regarding the basis for inception of so many cosmi, the key point is cosmic inflation occurring in each with the inflation interval conducive to parallel universe onset. Hence, soon after each respective expansion start (technically referred to as a "big bang" - though this is something of a misnomer because it isn't like any explosion.)  Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about 10^-35 s and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10^-43  to 10^-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates.

The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10^-15  m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10¹²   m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).

In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ.

The concept immediately shows that the claim of the whole "running down" owing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the fundie cites god-monger Robert Jastrow - a pseudo-astronomer, comparing it to the running down of a "clock") is poppycock. The reason is clear, because each parallel cosmos is only one part of the whole not the whole itself. Hence, if we liken the whole to an integrated thermodynamic system, the loss of energy in one (insulated) region - say via open systems within it -  doesn't mean the entire configuration runs down. In any case we also need to note here that the 2nd law doesn't obtain in a CLOSED system, i.e. the entropy remains constant in such systems. (Bear in mind each cosmos in the Multiverse is a closed system unto itself).  As noted by Kittel ( 'Thermal Physics' , John Wiley & Sons, p. 65):

The entropy is constant in a closed system, that is, in a system of constant energy and constant number of particles. The Sun, for example, is not a closed system: it loses energy by radiation and is cooling down. It is not clear, according to geophysicists, whether the total entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing at this moment

So this also applies to the ensemble of parallel cosmi in the Multiverse.  What about the evidence for the Multiverse and specifically parallel cosmi?  In his book The Fabric of Reality (pp. 38-47), David Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes. The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls "shadow photons".


He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe. He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):

"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics,"

This is mind-blowing indeed, but ultimately based on well known physics.

Now, what about any and all of the assorted parallel cosmi starting from nothing? This can also be shown but will require more patience because of the mathematical underpinning (which I seriously doubt the fundie-creationist possesses, though he's very good at putting up blogs which quote word for word from some creationist "scientist" or other- but not from himself, plausibly because he will be exposed as I did in my earlier blog) 

The basic concept in all "big bangs" is they are results of spontaneous quantum fluctuations from a quantum vacuum.   Thus the quantum vacuum provides an essentially infinite negative energy source (called the Dirace Ether) by which energy can be sustained and used to incept any and all big bangs. (See, for example, Luciano Boi: Chapter 2, 'The Role of Vacuum in Modern Physics'  in 'The Quantum Fluctuation',  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)

Consider the vacuum state for spontaneous inception of the cosmos, and the conditions that bear on it.

First, the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined (see e.g. Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctations in Spacetime', p. 125):

k_B[KL_p² / 3)^-1  + (ln 2)/2]

Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby


delta E ~ h/ delta t


leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. (See previous blog entry). As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):

"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".

Even more important (ibid.):


"Since K is a measure of the number of Q-bits ....a cosmology with N x Q-bits will exhibit Poisson statistics."

As anyone who has used Poisson statistics knows, these are based on a genuine phenomenal randomness.
Returning to the trace, let the event horizon of the vacuum bubble be defined by


rS(g) = 2 ct


Where r = L_p, the Planck length (L_p = {Gh/2 π c³ }^1/2 ) and S(g) is the action, then we will have the cosmological constant applicable to de Sitter space: K =

(n – 1)(n – 2)/ [2 q² ]

where q is a scale factor, and n denoted the dimension (4) of the volume under consideration. Now for S(g) ~ t ^1/2 , R (the scalar curvature of de Sitter space) = 0, so S(g) = 0


However, the above happens because the Einstein tensor (T_ik) has trace = 0 in the early universe. The ‘trace’ is the sum of the diagonal elements of a tensor, e.g.

Tr(M) = 0

where M =


[1 0 0 0]
[0 -1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 ]
[0 0 0 -1 ]


Now, if the "preparation device outcome" is none other than the net zero mass vacuum state on quantum fluctuation, such that dx ~ dL/ L (where L is the length scale of the volume, viz. dL >= (L*L_p²)^1/2 , then Tr(M) will apply to good approximation, and the causality assumption is finito. The question is WHY? A clue is provided by Seth Lloyd in his monograph 'Programming the Universe'(p. 118):


"What's going on is that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing"

Thus, what has transpired, is that the holographic fluctuation has not only incepted an inital mass-energy dE ~ H/ dt -> E/c²  but also information! The information inception occurred acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM.


To fix ideas, while the expectation value [E(Q,A)] of an observable represented by a bounded operator A, on separable Hilbert space H is given by:

[E(Q,A)] = tr (Q, A) where Q is a statistical operator, this presumes the ensemble representation is deterministic or 'causal' if for all g in G:

f_A(g) in S(A)


where S(A) is the spectrum of A with respect to the algebra L(H), but the condition does not apply in the case of quantum fluctuations on L_p.

For this reason other avenues can pursued - for example, using Riemann's Zeta function Z(E) in terms of divergent, infinite Dirichlet series that can be transformed into finite sums such as:

Z'(1/2 + iE) ~ 2 exp {- i π N(E)} å m=₁ to (E/2 π)^1/2  m^-1/2  cos(E lnm -  π N(e))

in conjunction with Gutzwiller's trace equation, and a more germane representation for the trace:

Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)

Taking into account the Poisson statistical nature attached to the fluctuations, whereby:

delta N = [N]^1/2  and delta V ~ G[V]^1/2


where delta N is the fluctuation of Q-bits arising, and delta V the corresponding fluctuation in volume, then we are led to the conclusion of Cromwell (ibid.).

"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"


In other words, the observed accelerating expansion negates the entropic "wind-down" and since it is itself a negative energy phenomenon, it points to a negative vacuum energy fluctuation for cosmic inception.. Thus dark energy is responsible for the acceleration and is given by the equation of state: w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1 so energy density(r)  = - p  which is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity". 

The beauty of this development is that it rests on its own merits, and doesn't require absolute proof of a Multiverse. In other words, whether or not we inhabit a multiverse or universe, the big bang is evidence for a spontaneous inception from a quantum vacuum, NOT "creation". The fundie can try to link Genesis to the Big Bang all he wants, but in the end he's on a fool's errand!

Barbados Celebrates Its First SuperBowl Champion!

Ravens’ Guard Ramon Harewood: First ever Bajan to be selected to a professional U.S. sports team and earn a championship

As Baltimore’s fans thronged city streets yesterday to celebrate their Ravens (see, e.g. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-ravens-super-bowl-victory-parade-pictures-20130205,0,1508294.photogallery, multiple sub-story lines threaded through the main story of the massive Victory Parade which saw more than a quarter million fans lining Baltimore’s downtown streets and 80,000 packed into M&T Bank Stadium to welcome their heroes.


One of the ancillary story lines, of course, is Michael Oher’s first Superbowl championship . Oher - while still in high school in Memphis -was taken in by Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy of Memphis who became his legal guardians. He then went on to play left tackle for the Ole Miss Rebels and is best known for the movie based on his life, featured in the Academy Award-winning 2009 film The Blind Side. The Baltimore Ravens selected him in the first round of the 2009 NFL Draft .


But for Barbadians, the main attraction was their own son of the soil, Ramon Harewood, being picked in the 6th round of the 2010 NFL draft by the same Baltimore Ravens. Ramon (see photo) was born in St.Michael, Barbados – where wifey and I lived for twenty years – and attended Queens College there before going on to Morehouse State College in the U.S. Ramon had virtually no football experience since Barbados has no American football teams, though the Bajans had gradually begun watching NFL games transmitted over their subscription TV.


When Harewood was picked in the 6th round of the 2010 NFL draft, the first time any Barbadian had been selected by a professional team for major sport, it made headlines in Bim. People also began wondering if they might soon see their famous wunderkind (almost as famous as Rhianna in some Bajan sports quarters) also become a world champion. They didn’t have long to wait, as he played a number of games as offensive tackle with the team this year and made it to the SuperBowl. He now has the special Superbowl XLVII ring showing the world his champion pedigree.

Meanwhile, Barbadians are excited to learn that arrangements are currently being formulated by the Barbados Tourist Board to bring Ramon and a number of Baltimore Ravens teammates to the island in April to conduct a football clinic for Bajan kids.  Ramon plans to bring along with him: RB Ray Rice, Torrey Smith (WR and repeatedly mugged on Sunday night by Niners DBs), Michael Oher of Blind Side movie associated fame, and cornerback Ladarius Webb.

This is more than overdue, as other U.S. sports have been around for more than forty years, including basketball – which was taught by fellow Peace Corps volunteers back in 1972.
Some have expressed concern that Barbados is in no position to support such a sport – requiring so much special equipment, pads etc. - given 90% of the island’s youth can barely afford school uniforms. But they miss the point! Football, like other sports, doesn’t HAVE TO be played with pads! Touch or tag football is just as good (ask the Kennedys in the 60s), and in fact more in keeping with Barbados’ resources – including the fact that it means fewer serious injuries which the island would be ill equipped to treat.


The only equipment you need is a rag, tucked in a back pocket, if playing the flag form and a large field – of which there are dozens in Barbados. Personally, I believe tag football teams could even be organized like Mgsr. Pace High did when I went there in the early 60s.


But we will see! The first priority is finalizing the arrangements for the football clinic in April so kids can learn the game from the Ravens’ pros.

Meanwhile, it’s come to my attention the San Francisco Forty-Whiners are still whining. Evidently, Head  Coach Jim Harbaugh is still defending his sideline tantrums and Frank Gore – not long after the 4th quarter’s final play, blurted: “WE were the better team!”

Uh, hate to break this to you, Frankie, but that was maybe only on paper, but not in the game itself. Y’all were dominated for two quarters and it likely would have been four had you not benefitted from a serendipitous time delay that allowed you to gather your wits. Instead of behaving ungraciously you’d do better to look at the game tapes again and see how the Baltimore O-line overpowered your D, and made plays you couldn’t stop. Meanwhile, the Ravens’ D stopped your O when it really counted.

Maybe next year….. or not! (Hopefully, the Pack comes back next year!)


See also: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/barbados-congratulates-ramon-harewood-first-ever-nfl-player-from-the-island-189416041.html

California: The State Where Your Probability of Getting Cancer Might be Lower

When my wife and I were in California in September last year (for my prostate cancer treatment in San Francisco), we noticed something never seen in other states we’ve visited or lived. That was, dozens and dozens of products on stores shelves with cancer warning labels, bearing words to the effect:


“This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm”

Those words, or very similar ones, appear on everything from flashlights, to eyeglass repair kits, to garden hoses and even coffee cups and ointments listed as treatments for diaper rash. Moreover, the warning label isn’t limited to consumer products but is also seen on buildings. In other words, you’re warned in advance if you enter X or Y bldg. you have a higher risk of getting cancer.

When we queried one of the oncologists at the UCSF Helen Diller Cancer Center about the ubiquity of these signs-warnings we were told about Proposition 85, which was passed in 1986. This Proposition requires the governor to publish an annual list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The most recent list includes hundreds of chemicals from literally A (A-alpha-C) to Z (zileuton). Others that have been regularly included and about which I’ve blogged before are: asbestos, benzene, PCBs and phthalates.)

All manufacturers must include the given warning (or a close facsimile) if the chemicals exceed “safe harbor levels” – which are those adopted by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (Prop. 85 itself lists 4 criteria by which a chemical hazard listing can be prompted. Moreover, the listings aren’t ironclad. If evidence changes the chemicals can be delisted.)

According to the OEHHA, the idea isn’t Nanny-state overkill but rather offering California’s citizens choice and information when they buy products. As they put it:

“Consumers can decide on their own if they want to purchase or use a product.”


So why don’t other states have such warning labels for their products. The UCSF oncologist again: “Other states are probably just content to go by the federal standards which are much lower.” Wow! So, the feds may be hyper worried about marijuana being legalized in some states, but it’s ok to have cancer causing agents all over tarnation. Else, why no warnings for such obvious carcinogens as benzene and phthalates as well as bisphenol –A (banned in Canada)?

For those readers interested, the full list of chemicals for which warnings are issued in CA can be found here:

www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html

Creationists are As Clueless Now as Ever!

Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still can't provide falsification tests for their own claims! And they have the nerve to say Evolution is "not a science"!

Incredibly, lowbrow fundies with nothing better to do with their time but make up fantasies (or idiotic cartoons depicting humans talking to relatives as monkeys - yuck yuck), are still circulating the canard that “evolution can’t be tested” or that "there’s no evidence" for it. One wonders where they’ve lived for the past 100+ years. Mayhap in caves? Evolution has been tested and re-tested and found to be consistently validated over short and long term time arcs. A typical fundie, pro-creationist blogger wrote recently - after seeing my blog ( 'Teaching the Controversy" ...Uh No'):

"Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins."

But in truth evolution does provide evidence, so is hardly "faith-based"! For example, we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')

Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros.


 In evolution we also  have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  Another key point showing his lack of education is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e.  the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated.  If he can't tell either of these disciplines from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted? I go even further, and assert that if his education is so defunct he ought not be writing about evolution at ALL!

Yet he goes on to blabber:

Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness!

NO! The preceding is foolishness! Evolutionary biologists reject creationism because it isn't based on any scientific tests of validity (which can be confirmed)  but rather BELIEF, specifically tied to biblical bunkum, as in Genesis ('Adam & Eve', Earth made before Sun etc.). Creationists don't even provide their own tests for falsifying their own alleged theories! For example, the evolutionist provides a falsfication test for his theory of common descent (i.e. that both Man and apes are descended from the same common ancestor) by using the cytochrome-c sequence, say as disclosed in chimps and humans, and asserting that beyond a certain (probability)  threshold the test fails. In other words:  the probability of Humans and apes coming from a common ancestor is low if the null hypothesis - say, that the cytochrome -c sequence variance occurring in both species is greater or equal to  0.5,  is true.. However, the actual probability for this falsity is so very low (roughly 10 followed by ninety three zeros to one) that common descent thereby passes the test. I.e. if evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms.


WHAT tests do the creationists offer to falsify their own theories of creation? They offer nothing because creationism is not science but based on beliefs!

Then he compounds his ignorance by saying "supposedly evolution is the only theory of ORIGINS that can be tested" - failing to note evolution is NOT a theory of "origins" - like abiogenesis or cosmogenesis - but a theory of how species separated and developed by natural selection. Again, he shows he lacks understanding of the most basic principles!   As Richard Dawkins has accurately noted:

"The theory of evolution by CUMULATIVE NATURAL SELECTION  is the ONLY THEORY we KNOW OF that is capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

But what does Mr. Fundie say? He claims: "Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.” This is why radical heathens like our blogger friend are so afraid of letting our students look at both sides."


This again is doggerel since there are not two sides!    If there were then the creationists would be able to provide tests for the falsification of their own theory! This they do not provide, so they are proffering a belief system, not one based on evidence! Another example: The creationists claim that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old yet we have rocks that have been subjected to radio-isotope testing putting them at near 4 billion years old. How do they reconcile these? Well, they cop out by blaming the radio-isotope testing as being "in error" instead of admitting THEY are the ones peddling bollocks!   And they want us to use precious class time to push this malarkey on students! And now the evidence for the proof being in the pudding, proving my point that he and his looney tune ilk are pushing religious beliefs not offering any science. He writes:

   "If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God"  

Note that rather than counter the evidence as I showed at the beginning, they dream up “supernatural theories” of creationism  or "God" which can neither be tested or falsified.  Also noted his own logic is inverted. It isn't "if creationism is true then there is a Creator" - but IF it is true there must be scientific tests for evidence which are met! This proves my point that they aren't about scientific testing, for which they'd be able to offer falsification tests for their claims, but pushing BELIEF in a "Creator", i.e. a RELIGION.  As for evolution being an "enabler" for atheism, I am afraid the guy has no clue and doesn't realize atheism stands on its own whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. But yes, the facts of evolution (i.e. the same cytochrome -c sequence in humans and chimps) DO allow a theory - a truly scientific theory-  independent of incorporating any external agents like "creators" or books like the Bible!  Does creationism allow a counter scientific  'theory' for a creator?  Obviously not! There are no creationist  falsification tests provided!   This means we must clean up his last remark :   ." Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe."

No, evolution proves that a truly scientific theory exists independent of any religious belief in a god. We have all the evidence and other data to show that the hypothesis of a "creator" is redundant, unnecessary. Hence, we follow the principle of Ockham's Razor: that extra hypotheses are not to be increased without necessity. 

Evolution is a theory based on actual facts and tests that have been repeated and confirmed thousands of times. If the fundies wish to join us in the 21st century, they will have to accept that -else maybe figure a way to build a time machine to go back to where they really belong: two or three thousand years ago! 

Of Blackouts, Bullies, and How the 9ers Became the Whiners

Joe Flacco holds the Lombardi, and a ref with lights still out in New Orleans. This blackout was inexcusable!

After Super Bowl halftime, I had just come back with my beer, plate full of brats, polish sausage, fries and hot wings to see Jacoby Jones of the Ravens race 108 yards for a runback touchdown to make the score 28-6 Baltimore. No sooner had I remarked to wifey – delirious at her team’s success: "We're about to see a blowout!" when half the lights in the Superdome went dim. At that point, the game stopped for a full 34 minutes and we both feared this unconscionable event would suck ‘mo’ - as in momentum-from the Ravens. I mean, they had the %#&*@# Niners on the ropes, down 22 points when the place went dim.
Sure enough, when play finally resumed the Ravens’ O and D looked flat, almost as if they were in a trance or spectators at a game they were supposed to be playing. (Highlighted by 2 missed tackles by the secondary letting Frank Gore in for a TD).

Meanwhile, wifey was going into a meltdown mode – tears streaming from her eyes and onto her 'Ed Reed' No. 20 jersey: “THIS IS NOT RIGHT!”  she screamed. Indeed. And both of us knew the Niners would use the unexpected free time to gather themselves and re-plan their game and regroup. Sure enough this is what occurred though many pundits said it was “just the Niners coming back again”. Bull pockey! As Tight end Dennis Pitta put it: "By the time play resumed all our energy was sucked out and we lost our momentum".


The Niner sonsabitches escaped what looked like a sure blowout. Was a Niners’ fan responsible for going into the innards of the stadium and shutting down a fuse box? Ravens’ fans are exploring that possibility while Roger Goodell and the NFL promises an investigation of the cause. Meanwhile, Entergy of Louisiana noted transmission records showing the power was never cut to the stadium. Thus, the cause had to be in the stadium itself.

New Orleanians, as typical for denizens of “the City that care forgot” just shrugged it off, but it’s not that easy. The bottom line is such travesties are not supposed to occur on the stage of the biggest sporting event on Earth, and in a putatively premier stadium in the U.S.. Rather we expect such events to hobble stadia in Santo Domingo, Port- au Prince or Kingston. It is a shameful breakdown that never ought to have transpired, and the league needs to spare no effort to uncover the source – whether human, natural or electrical fault. (This is the first Superbowl in N.O. since Katrina).


In the meantime, Forbes.com has correctly observed there should be no more SBs in the Crescent City until the 38-year old Superdome is replaced. See, e.g.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/02/03/superdome-shutdown-super-bowl-xlvii-blackout-hurts-new-orleans-future-super-bowl-bids/

Fortunately, Joe Flacco and the Ravens did manage to regroup and he led a 4 minute plus drive near the end that put the game away.

The Niners did get their shots at the end – four of them into the end zone -  but couldn’t deliver. As the game ended with an intelligent ‘no call’ you could almost hear all the Niners turning into whiners. At the post-game interviews it really erupted with the likes of Ahmad Brooks and Vernon Davis implying the refs “gave the game away” and that on the best right corner end zone Kaepernick pass, to Michael Crabtree, there was defensive holding. Of course, this is horse shit and had the Refs called a penalty, as Trent Dilfer noted on ESPN, “it would have rewarded a BAD PLAY with a BAD CALL”. It would have handed a SB win to a team that didn’t deserve it, and who THEMSELVES got away with bloody murder during the game – repetitively mugging Ravens’ receivers with holds and punches (Torrey Smith being the primary "beneficiary"). Trent Dilfer also noted a vicious 49er hit on Flacco out of bounds never called. Had it been, the Ravens would have benefited from a 15-yard penalty  that could have put the Ravens further ahead in the 3rd Quarter. Did you see the Ravens pissing and moaning? NOooooooooo.....

But THIS IS HOW THE GAME WAS CALLED according to commentator Marshall Faulk. So for the refs to suddenly alter the play -calling template to benefit one team at the very end would definitely have raised eyebrows on a possible fix. 

Getting back to the Crabtree pass play, Kaepernick would have done better – instead of using a pass into the end zone that the Ravens' DBs were waiting for- to go for a read option run on the left side. There is a good chance he could have just faked a handoff to Gore, then scampered into the end zone with Ed Reed and Bernard Pollard (who we now know played with 6 broken ribs)  huffing and puffing behind him. So why didn’t Jim Harbaugh make that call instead of fruitless passes into the end zone? According to one pundit, he “overthought the strategy”. Harbaugh himself declared there was a run option on one of the plays. But it wasn't used. Why not? (And please let's not have lunk heads and paranoid delusionals saying "the last call was fixed" by the "mob" in Vegas. The infantilism of certain commentators has to stop someplace! Clue one, Sherlock, the "mob" no longer runs Vegas, it's the Corporations!)


So puh-leeze don’t blame the ‘refs for a ”bad call”, when in reality they called consistently throughout the game – ignoring obvious penalty holds, blows etc. on BOTH sides! To therefore have awarded the Niners with a special (exception)  penalty call at the very end would have been obscene as well as inconsistent. (See also : http://www.denverpost.com/renck/ci_22519807/troy-e-renck-super-time-no-call-biggest )


Thus, when assorted knotheads, punks and whiners cry that the “refs gave the game to the Ravens” they want their asses kicked, or maybe more gently – their glasses replaced! Of course, the Niners’ bullying behavior has been noted all year especially by teams they’ve played in the NFC, including my team, the Green Bay Packers. In the season opener the Niners DBs mugged Packer receivers relentlessly as they did in the playoff game, also using vicious punches (never called as penalties) to throw WRs off their timing routes. Often this whacking was done way past the 5-yard limit.

The problem for the 49ers is that in the SuperBowl, as Shannon Sharpe of CBS put it: “The Niners met Bigger Bullies than they were!” Indeed. You see the Ravens’ are built to be the biggest, toughest bunch on the block and they take no shit, especially from any Niner punks . You could see in the first half several skirmishes and punches thrown because this team is designed to BULLY, not be bullied. Their O-line alone has more ‘beef’ than five Texas Longhorns. Their defensive backs are trained to hit wide receivers so hard on receptions that on every future play they’re skittish and often drop passes. That is the way Baltimore plays and why they earned the nickname “The Baltimore Bullies” after blistering Denver a number of times over several years during the pre-Manning era. (The monicker was invented by DPost sport columnists.)


ON a final footnote, some peeved Denver fans still haven’t gotten over their playoff beating to Baltimore. Some on the Denver Post forums last night – after a story on Baltimore fans’ celebration in the streets-  asserted bollocks like “Just wait until they start burning the cars and property!” But these morons have their cities mixed up. It has actually been SAN FRANCISCO (like after their Giants’ World Series’ win) that have burned cars and rioted. See also: http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-fans-wild-ride-ends-quietly-in-SF-4247858.php  Another wrote: "If they do burn it down there's no great loss!" Well, moron, hate to break it to you, but Baltimore has more culture in one square mile than cowtown Denver has in its whole 200- odd square miles.


Maybe all losing teams and their football fans need to reclaim their lives ASAP after their team goes down, and stop making stupid excuses as well as insulting the victors!