Yes, College Rankings Are A Marketing Ruse - And Joke

The Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska -Fairbanks. Most likely you will not find UAF listed in U.S. News & World Report's Annual College Listings - but that doesn't mean it's not a great university.

Frank Bruni's NY Times' Review Op-Ed 'Why College Rankings Are A Joke' (Sept. 18, SR3) merits commendations for exposing the annual college rankings marketing racket.  From numerous points of view Bruni skewers the commonplace trope that a media listing of colleges, universities can provide a seminal insight into quality. And, of course, which schools always end up at the top? Well, the Ivies because they peddle their brand most ardently and invest the time in advertising, and marketing that brand to too many gullible parents- who then join battle with tens of thousands of other parents. All intent on getting Junior or Missy into the "best" school.

But most of this effort is doomed to end up merely with outstanding college debts, and the graduates will leave without having received the specific education they expected. Whereas, if they hadn't been blinded by the brand they might have made a more judicious pick.  As Bruni puts it:

"The rankings nourish the myth that the richest, most selective colleges have some corner on superior education."

Bruni's beef is that this annual high branding exercise fails to recognize excellent public institutions - especially those that may evince superiority in a specific field, discipline. A case in point was the University of South Florida ca. 1968-75 featuring the best quality work in astrometry in the nation, thanks to its Chairman, Prof. Henirich Eichhorn.    Astrometry is the branch of astronomy that deals with accurate determination of stellar positions (in Right Ascension and declination), for the purpose of creating reliable star catalogues. It also entails analysis and determination of the proper motions of celestial objects, as well as highly specific motions including: precession of the equinoxes, lunar libration and astronomic nutation. Prof. Eichhorn also brought in astronomy staff from Yale including Sabatino Sofia, James. H.  Hunter and Carol Williams, launching USF into the top tier of astronomy departments.

Flash forward to the present: if one searches the annual U.S. News rankings for the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, for example, the chances are it will not be found. The lame conclusion based on the ranking elite bias will then be it is not a place worth attending, but this would be a gross error. In terms of specific fields, atmospheric science and space physics, there is perhaps none better. We are talking here not only about the quality of the staff but the resources, e.g. available at the Geophysical Institute.

UAF, for example, has been at the forefront of Arctic atmospheric research - much of which is conducted at the Climate Research Center, e.g.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/


There is also Poker Flat, the world's only scientific rocket launching facility, e.g.

http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/

The rockets launched from here enable more detailed studies of the aurora, magnetic substorms.

For space physics in general, including the study of the aurora, substorms and solar-terrestrial dynamics it has all the resources the dedicated researcher needs, see  e.g.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/research/space-physics-aeronomy

Given the UAF location and its facilities you won't find a better place for studies in ionospheric, infrasound and magnetospheric physics, as well as space weather. Harvard certainly can't compete in these specialized fields, nor does it have comparable resources.

All of this underscores points I made two years ago concerning a fact too many wannabe collegians and their parents overlook: it makes very little difference which university you attend (assuming it isn’t a ‘for profit’ or online version). It is more the cachet and reputation of the specific department.

From the May 2011 issue of MONEY magazine: "Don't assume an Ivy League education is better than one from a public or state university."

MONEY found that  'bang for the buck' included college graduation rates and post-college success rates - which compared favorably to - or exceeded  - what one obtained from the hallowed Ivies. Alas, this has still not trickled down into the mainstream media where we still find "Best Colleges" lists spread around with the Ivy Leagues on top - then all the rest. So no wonder students and their parents are neurotically driven to believe the Ivies are the  only route to success.

From Bruni's piece, it is highly instructive to see the assorted factors - all highly subjective- that are used to arrive at the rankings.  For example, one is how highly officials at peer institutions rank said school. But as Bruni observes, if they know little or nothing about it (especially for the specific field) why would you expect anything other than a low to mediocre rank?  In such a case it is more plausible they'd go by the "reputation" - but where does that originate? Well, usually from earlier US News rankings! So it's a case of subjective brand incest piled atop more perception incest.

In toto, the cumulative parameters drive perceptions in one direction. To quote Bruni again:

"Intentionally or not, they fuel a frenzy to get into the most selective schools. But they can't adjust for how well certain colleges serve certain ambitions."

What if a high school student then, has an intense interest to study the aurora? Maybe he saw images of it firing up the Arctic sky in a PBS documentary, and now wants to study the physical mechanisms driving it in detail. Will he be able to do this at Harvard, or even MIT? Not very likely. At least to the same extent as actually being in the Arctic and having access to resources such as provided by the Poker Flat rockets, or HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program).  As noted in the Wiki article on the program:

"According to the HAARP team, this (research) will advance the study of basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction,"

My point, and I believe Bruni's, is that it would be a crime to dispatch this student to some university which would not be able to fully satisfy his intellectual curiosity, and provide him a future trajectory for productive work and research. But if his parents only go by selective US News rankings, that negative outcome is very likely.

One of the worst travesties of the annual rankings racket exposed by Bruni is that "many college presidents, provosts and deans of admissions express disdain for the rankings...but participate in them nevertheless."

The Existentialist Jean -Paul Sartre would have a precise word for that: "bad faith". At his Loyola University appearance in 1964 he defined it as a person deceiving himself into being convinced he lacks real freedom of choice, usually because he harbors a fear of potential adverse consequences. Thus, the college provosts, presidents  admissions staff etc. know the 'best college' rankings are just media branding bunkum but nevertheless kowtow to them because they believe their peers will look askance at their hostility, perhaps question their credibility.

Perceptive citizens, especially parents, shouldn't be so hamstrung because they have nothing to prove to anyone else. If they are truly dedicated to the welfare of their charges they will do what is best for them- and that means securing the best college for their particular talents.

Wells Fargo Bankster Hustle Shows Dodd-Frank Is Toothless To Protect Customers

Recall five months ago I referred to a  WSJ piece in which the author (Donna Borak)  made clear Bernie Sanders knew exactly what he was talking about re: reining in the banksters. Further,  it was the outside media and Neolib hacks (like Barney Frank)  that made a right mess of it.  Thus, to quote the article on  the authority the government could use to break up the big banks, we learned:

"Mr. Sanders said a bill he introduced in May, 2015 would give the Treasury Secretary authority to break up big banks but leave it to the institutions to figure out how to restructure"


Further details (ibid.):

"Under his plan, The Financial Stability Oversight Council, headed by the Treasury Secretary  - would have 90 days to compile a list of banks deemed too big to fail,  The list automatically would include institutions like Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Citigroup Inc, Bank of America Corp. and Morgan Stanley

Now in retrospect we see how prescient Bernie was as the Wells Fargo bankster scam has unfolded. For those who have lived under a rock, or don't follow finance stories, let me summarize: Wells Fargo's banker honchos - including top bankster banana John Stumpf (recently grilled by the Senate Banking Committee) set ridiculous sales quotas for retail bank employees which led to millions of sham accounts set up (in customers' names)  that customers knew nothing about. In some cases, as many as 7-8 accounts per bank customer were set up which dinged the owners with multiple bank fees. It was only after going through statements they became aware of how they'd been played.

Former employees quoted in a recent (Sept. 17) NY Times Business piece affirmed the "biggest problem was Wells Fargo's aggressive sales culture which was nurtured and honed over decades at the bank's highest levels."

In other words the scam bank "buck" can be parked right at Stumpf's door.

According to one former bank employee, Sharif Kellogg, based at a Wells'  branch in Catonsville, MD:

"The branch managers were always asking: How many solutions did you sell today? They wanted three to four a day. In my mind that was crazy. That's not how people's financial lives work."

Which is exactly true. Indeed, wifey and I have been customers at a local Wells Fargo branch for over the past 13 years, and although offered "deals" we never at any time had more than a limited number of accounts, including CDs.   I'd estimate the  grand total over all that time would have been six at the most, and currently only three including a CD.  It's hard enough to keep track of a few accounts far less ten running at a time as some Wells cusstomers were faced with

For his part, Kellogg- referenced above - was constantly hounded by his branch supervisor to increase his sales or "solutions" as they were known. Quoted in the Times he said:

"I was always being written up for failing to bump up my soloutions numbers"

And this happened to a guy earning only $11.75 an hour. Yet it was these lower grade employees who bore the brunt of the 5,300 layoffs. This is while the honchos that engineered it  are still sitting pretty with their mammoth multi-million dollar bonuses, stock perks and paid vacations for getting employees to sell shit to those who don't need or want it.

Wells'  chief executive John Stumpf actually had the chutzpah to deny the misdeeds were  the result of an aggressive sales culture or flawed inncenitve structure. But that would carry about the same credibility as me - when I taught space physics - claiming that assigning 15 labs and  15 projects per week would not entice students to cheat. No one with half a brain would buy such flagrant BS and no one ought to buy Stumpf's either.

In fact, under corporate criminal law - all Stumpf's posturing aside-  Wells Fargo is strictly liable for the criminal behavior of its employees acting within the scope of its sales business.

The really ironic aspect of this whole shameful farce? The bank employees were given ethics training and it insisted they adhere to high standards. According to one Wells teller writing in a Reddit forum:

"We go through SO much training about ethics and how you CANNOT do that. I got threatened to be fired as a teller because I wasn't meeting my numbers. I told them I didn't believe in trying to convince someone to spend money they don't have to get what they don't need."

And yet this employee, with high ethical principles, was found expendable because she merely refused to play the bank's aggressive profiteering game.

Wells' fired workers, for their part, actually managed to get some digs in at these bankster assholes using creative (youtube) cartoon videos, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzGeEtKbCI


Most are spoofs of the banksters'  hard driving "gimme my profits" culture and the fact ordinary workers were hardly getting rich meeting their bosses' specious hyper-sales targets. In one video, a cartoon banker drones on: "If tellers and bankers make those sales numbers each day, at the end of the month everybody in the branch gets a $5 gift card to McDonald's and the district managers gets a $10,000 cash bonus."

If it wasn't so damned pathetic you'd have to laugh.

Incredibly, as federal prosecutors are considering bringing charges, you have the spectacle of assholes like Stumpf giving false apologies and accepting "accountability" for lower echelon workers "misinterpreting sales goals".

That's really generous of this profiteering renegade, but how about him foregoing all his pay for the next  five years and returning all bonuses? Then giving the monies to the discharged lower rung Wells' workers? Of course, that would never fly. Neither the existing shredded banking laws, nor the high status exec culprits have the capacity or the honor.

What has happened is that Wells  has been fined $185 m - which is chicken feed to these guys. The bank also agreed last week  to develop a "broad oversight program" for its sales practices in a settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. According to Wells Fargo spokeswoman Mary Esher, the "bank had considered this step for quite some time before finally deciding to eliminate the sales goals".

Why Wells would have to take "quite some time" to even consider robbery incentives for sales goals is beyond me. But perhaps the honcho banksters live in a different moral universe from the one I and  millions of other Americans inhabit. We don't possess all copper- -lined bathtubs e.g.

But we do know right from wrong.

And we wouldn't need harsh lectures by Senate Banking firebrand Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Warren, had she'd been nominated as Veep (as most of us suggested), would have saved Hillary's bacon with millennial voters (now turning to the 3rd party candidates.)

The best part of the Banking Committee session with John Stumpf was Sen. Warren raking the sleazy bastard over the coals, saying in part:

"You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket...Your definition of accountable is to push the blame to your low level employees.... This is about accountability. You should resign. You should give back the money that you took while this scam was going on and you should be criminally investigated. This just isn't right!"

Spoken like a person who actually looks out for citizens. But again, that requires having a moral imperative as opposed to money grubbing über alles ethics.. Don't look for a rat-faced bastard like Stumpf to follow any of her injunctions. This is a character with the morals of a leech.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/69054/how-to-take-on-the-banksters

Excerpt:

"the truth of the matter is that cross-selling isn't meant to be good for customers. It's meant to inflate stock prices, and consequently enrich investors and executives, like Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf himself."

The New 'Murican Pastime: "Machine Gun Shoots"

It's Saturday morning, and after a big breakfast of hominy grits, biscuits and gravy, pancakes and scrambled eggs, Junior, Missy, Dad Buford and Mom "Bertie" are off to the local machine gun shoot. They will be able to get into the venue for a measly $8 entry fee and then fire away at assorted targets- including paper posters of Osama Bin Laden's head- for only a nominal gun  rental fee. A lucky few will actually be able to get their paws on the same kind of machine gun that killed Osama bin Laden, a weapon that can spit out 900 bullets a minute.

The family will also have its choice of 200 different machine guns to see how much stuff they can blow away in a given amount of time. In the afternoon they will actually be able to try "sniper shots" and at dusk  be able to fire with tracers lighting up the sky.  In the local case, Dad Buford might even be reprimanded by a big hairy guy full of tattoos if he doesn't fire his weapon with abandon. That dude is liable to bark: “Stop firing little bursts, you’re not getting the real fun of the gun. This time, when you pull the trigger, keep holding it down until every bullet is gone.”

You may be astonished to learn that in gun crazy America - according to The Denver Post today, barely 3 percent of the adult population own half of all the guns. And Americans as a whole, own 99 percent of the guns in the world. If that doesn't blow your mind I don't know what will. Also, owning a machine gun - like the HK 416 - is perfectly legal. They require only a federal permit and a background check, which typically take six to eight months to complete.

The real delimiter is that  the guns themselves are priced out of the hands of most people, with $8,000 being a bargain-basement sticker. (Hence, accounting for the explosion of "machine gun shoots" so average Joes and Janes can get their jollies and thrill firing at assorted rocks, bottles, trees and paper images of OBL.

Personally, I'd rather use that kind of bread for trips to Vegas and Barbados - flying first class. But hey, that's me. I basically got all the target shooting (including testing the "jet effect" balderdash proposed by Luis Alvarez -  to explain the JFK backward head snap-   out of my system back in 1968, e.g.

Test firing a .22 bolt action rifle with hollow point bullets outside of New Orleans in August, 1968.

Why the very high prices, say compared to the semi-automatic AR-15 (which as I showed last Dec. 15,  can easily be converted to automatic by removing the sear and a few other key components). Anyway, blame the high prices on  a federal law that banned the manufacture of machine guns for private use in 1986.

With far fewer guns, and the powerful law of supply and demand, prices went through the roof. So  an automatic M-16 that used to go for $300 in 1986 is a $27,000 gun today. Incredibly,
despite those price tags, private citizens have registered more than 543,000 machine guns with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (including more than 33,000 in Florida).

According to the purveyors of machine gun shoots, the great thing about partaking is that you don't have to already have an owner registration to rent one. SO, even a ten year old kid can fire away so long as he listens to Mr. Tatoo'ed Terry and doesn't fire blindly or foolishly.

It's a win -win according to the machine gun shoot promoters, like here in Colorado Springs. Thus the guns are acquired by the shooter outfits and ranges  with federal firearms-dealer licenses, and though they can’t be resold except to military, police or other authorized agencies, it’s perfectly legal to rent them to customers who want a chance to shoot a weapon they’ve probably only seen in the movies.

Still, it's a pity the era seems to be long passed when the whole family would rather spend a day at Everglades National Park instead,




















December, 1957, the Stahl family near Everglades National Park.

Biopsy Result Shows Writing On The Wall - Maybe Limited Time To Act

Horizontal -spatial view showing distribution of cancer regions and percentage of cells deemed malignant

The grim-faced urologist entered the patient consultation room late yesterday morning as wifey and I stood up to greet him. Since I already suspected the worst (from an earlier telephone call) I wasn't totally shocked into insensibility when he handed me the summary sheet for the recent MRI fusion biopsy, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-i-got-wrong-about-my-mri-fusion.html

The worst part of the damned pathology report was the Gleason 7 score in one region (3 + 4) with 63 percent of the cells assigned malignant status. My temptation was to try to emphasize the benign regions and the lower (Gleason 6, or 3 + 3) score areas, e.g.

But the urologist wasn't sharing any confidence for non-action. It was clear from these results as well as the associated Partin Table*,


 I had little choice other than to act, or face a possible metastasis of the (currently) confined cancer in as little as 5-6 months. But to establish whether I had even that much time to act, the urologist suggested getting a genetic marker test, made on the biopsy cells - called Prolaris.  This test is designed to indicate whether the cells in that Gleason 7 region are very aggressive, or much less so. If the former, I will have to act much more rapidly.

When I asked how much time I'd have if I did nothing, he hedged, conceding no test could be a crystal ball. However, wifey, who worked for decades in the fields of radiotherapy treatment as well as software testing, warned me the last stages of the disease could be agonizing with bowel and bladder problems, bone fractures and pain that would be enough to make the strongest guy cry unless he was on a diet of opioid pain killers. (Which I hate, since I don't like taking anything more potent than a baby aspirin). So it appeared even Janice was taking the doc's side that I had no choice other than to treat the damned thing.

After fifteen minutes of discussing treatment options, side effects, the choices came down to two: 1) focal cryotherapy, or 2) salvage brachytherapy.  (1) is the "ice ball" treatment that is shown in two videos in the link above. (2) represents a repeat of the treatment I had in San Francisco four years ago but now done in two administrations, at much higher doses (36 Gy a week apart).

The urologist affirmed that he leaned more to (1) given my previous experience with brachy indicated the cancer was resistant to this treatment. That basically meant I might be "nuking" my prostate - including urethra and bowel, for nothing. (But I am still waiting for a full brochure or document discussing the full salvage treatment from UCSF).

I said earlier, with much bravado, I was prepared to do nothing. But that was delivered with the understanding (or assumption) I'd have maybe 7 quality years left. However, if doing nothing means dying in 1-2 years then it becomes a no go, a non option. I might be ready to toss in the towel at some point, but not that early.

If the focal cryotherapy is chosen we have in mind an expert in Denver, Dr. David Crawford, who is also at the forefront of 3D staged biopsy. That will necessitate a meeting with him to see if I qualify and also (likely) another 3D biopsy with full mapping - meaning that he'd take up to 150 core samples while I am knocked out under general anesthesia. Then, a month or so later I'd have the procedure done and stay over in a hotel until the Foley catheter can be removed (hopefully in under a week).

For now it's a watching and waiting game and the pathology slides also have to be reviewed by Dr. Hsu of UCSF. I am hoping on his review he will find that the Gleason 7 region is really a 6 and there are more benign areas than malignant.

But....that may be just wishful thinking.

* Partin Table:

A probability table showing outcomes expected just prior to treatment, assuming it is done in a reasonable time. A table shows the probabilities of the cancer remaining contained in the gland or getting out ("extraprostatic extension") including getting into lymph nodes. Bracketed values shown with it give the 95% confidence values.

See also (for more information on the 3D Staging biopsy and Focal Treatment):

http://www.edavidcrawford.com/targeted-prostate-cancer-treatment

'Snowden' - An Oliver Stone Film Every American Should See (Minor Spoilers)

Since I saw the first trailers  for the movie 'Snowden' five months ago, and also read the details (in NY Times magazine)  of how difficult a project it was for Oliver Stone, I've wanted to see this film.  The first thing that struck me from the Times piece was that no major studio would touch the film, take it on. This is really no surprise since the corporate matrix has close associations with the national security matrix as well as Neoliberal security statists (like Obama and Hillary) who would frown if they did a biopic on a guy considered a "traitor".   That left Oliver to do it with 'Open Road' Productions, and at first he felt somewhat chagrined, let down until someone reminded him they had produced last year's Best Picture, 'Spotlight'.

Many reviewers, such as Anne Hornady of the WaPo, also expressed wonder that Stone had turned his sights away from conspiracy fare, such as in JFK. But they appear to forget - or never processed in the first place- that the bases for the two films are radically different. In the case of 'JFK', even by the time Stone's movie came out in 1991,  there were still precious few files released, other than what the bastardized Warren Commission and the subsequent House Subcommittee on Assassinations (HSCA) wanted released. Thus, Oliver felt it incumbent upon him to "fill the information" hole with what he called a "counter myth" to the "Warren Commission myth" of the assassination."  Stone, in multiple interviews before the film's release (e.g. on CNN's 'Larry King Live') never claimed 'JFK' was factual, or historical.

But the corpora-media, so eager to reinforce Americans' somnolence, went nuts. Indeed, almost exactly four years ago I noted how the WaPo spinoff mag NEWSWEEK, in its Dec. 23, 1991 cover -  fairly screamed: The Twisted Truth of 'JFK': Why Oliver Stone's Film Can't Be Trusted'  

The actual article, bordering on the hysterical and penned by a Kenneth Auchincloss, lambasted Stone for attempting to "recreate history", and concluded that anything which does , "distorts history".  But time, and the release of millions of files under the JFK Records Act (in the wake of demands made in the aftermath of 'JFK') have proven Stone correct in many aspects. For example, on the existence and basis of National Security Action Memorandum 263. Hence, it was clear that Stone was spot -on correct in his prescient selection of at least one motive for the assassins.  Egg on the face? All over Auchinchloss and cohort.

In the case of Snowden, the how and where to do with  his feat of exposing  NSA's gargantuan bulk data collection program has been massively documented, as by The UK Guardian and The Washington Post. Much of this was already presented for the general viewer in the Oscar-winning documentary 'Citizen Four' by Laura Poitras, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/citizen-four-documentary-every-citizen.html

Referencing the blowback from Snowden's disclosures some six months after he made his way to Hong Kong, Federal Circuit Judge Richard Leon averred  that the mass collection of phone metadata, revealed by the Guardian in June, was "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary" in its scope.  He also wrote:

"The almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979,"

The film itself opens with Snowden (incredibly played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt)  meeting up with 'Citizen Four' documentary producer Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald in his Hong Kong hotel room. There, after taking precautions from snoops, he meticulously relates his story and this is where we jump through the fact to fiction 'looking glass'. In the words of NY  Times critic A.O. Scott "it could be described as a fictional making of feature about Citizen Four."  A verdict with which I must wholeheartedly concur. Hence, the movie 'Snowden' is told via progressive  flashbacks as part of the 'Citizen Four' backstory.

For those unfamiliar with it Snowden's personal history then unfolds from ca. 2004 to the near present. It begins with his recounting why he joined the Army that year to fight against the "bad guys". Spurred by 9/11 he wanted to do something to help his country. His Army ambitions (Special forces)  came to a halt because of health issues and instead he ended up in the intelligence services, first working for the CIA, then for the NSA, and finally as a contract worker for the latter. The story follows him from his first intel post in Geneva, Switzerland, then to Tokyo, then Ft. Meade (NSA HQ near Columbia, MD) and finally the NSA operation base known as "the Tunnel" on Oahu.  All this time he is also trying to maintain a relationship with gf Lindsay Mills .played by Shailene Woodley (of 'Divergent' series fame).

What every citizen really needs to see, is the extent of spying shown on the assorted CIA, NSA screens that Snowden and cohort are privy too.   Let us acknowledge that some cinematic license is taken here in the interest of time compression, convenience and cinematography - but also acknowledge this does not detract from the basic truth of how the programs, systems worked. During one scene, where the young target had foolishly left her laptop web cam exposed, wifey turned to me and whispered: "See, that's why I always put solid tape over that web cam eye!"  The scene then unfolds as we watch the girl on the screen strip, and Snowden  - nicknamed 'Snow White' - could scarcely believe his eyes.

The images showing the bulk data phone collection and how just "three jumps" can lead to 2.5 million potential targets (most of them innocent) will also blow viewers' minds.  Not long after we see Snowden's NSA handler (Corbin O'Brian)  barking: "Americans don't want liberty, they want security!" Really? And what kind of Americans are those? Two year olds still in nappies and sucking on sippy cups?

It has also  been hilarious (and somewhat infuriating)  to read the offal that passes for some reviews, like this garbage from one at The Toronto Star:

"With his gripping new docudrama Snowden, which just had its world premiere at TIFF, Stone is totally on the side of Edward Snowden, painting the fugitive ex-CIA and National Security Agency whistleblower as an American patriot, not the evil “hacker” that U.S. President Obama dismissed Snowden as when it all blew open in 2013."

Let me say here that ANY genuine patriot or sentient being, cognizant of the extent to which the NSA grabbed data, on everyone, would also back Snowden. The very notion of "bias"  in a film producer would be incomprehensible. This is because the level of deceit and despicable overreach in grabbing records - especially across the globe- beggars the imagination and desecrates the moral temperament.  We are talking here of ALL the following information which had been fair game for collection without a warrant, including:

the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards

Are reviewers, a majority of Americans or others, really ok with this bullshit/? Seriously? Then they can't have any complaints if the spooks turn the planet into a real panopticon.

So maybe the Canuck reviewer can be excused on the ground the Canadians don't really care about specific warrants for searches, as embodied in our 4th amendment.  (After all,  they sided with the British in the Revolutionary War.) Other reviewers complained about  "taking liberties"  with reality but they also have it wrong. A more sober take is the one by NY Times film critic A.O. Scott referencing Stone "embellishing the record in the service of drama and suspense". The fictional aspects - such as Snowden's use of the Rubik cube to conceal the micro SD card with critical files on it (9.4 mb worth) -  was merely to enhance the drama of what is a film - not a documentary.

In other words, like all great story tellers Stone had the good sense to grasp if he told the Snowden story straight - no embellishments -  he'd send most of the audience to sleep within twenty minutes or so.  This is why I also have problems with nitpicking twaddle such as appeared at Slate.com, i.e. "Snowden is a bad movie, stuffed with myth, short on drama".. Don't believe this claptrap - likely penned by an NSA or CIA media hack - for a nanosecond.  Indeed, such balderdash immediately caused me to rank Slate alongside rag blogs like Politico. It also jaundiced me in respect of ever trusting the judgment of a review on Slate.com again. If they could get this so wrong, what about any other films?

Near the end of the film we see and hear former NSA and CIA director Michael V. Hayden predicting that Snowden will waste away in Moscow.  In any case, whatever small tribulations Snowden has to endure in Russia are nothing compared to the despicable spectacle he'd face (in a military, Kangaroo-rigged court) if he ever returned to the U.S. He'd also likely be found guilty and suffer an even worse fate than Bradley Manning. They'd probably keep him naked in a solitary cell, fed only bread & water,  and water-boarded every 6 hours-   so enraged they'd be at how he exposed the underbelly of the national security state. (Which recall had no compunctions about blowing JFK's brains out on a Dallas' street.)

We all owe Snowden a debt of gratitude and those who say otherwise or call him a "traitor"  have no business calling themselves patriots or Americans. They belong to the same class of vermin as Joseph Goebbels, Herman Goering, and the other Nazi scum who used (via the Gestapo) their own extensive methods to grab up power more than 70 years ago.

See also:

http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/09/188945/oliver-stone%E2%80%99s-snowden-hero-ages

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/05/edward-snowden-one-year-surveillance-debate-begins-future-privacy

A Radical Idea: No National Anthem At Most Sports Events

It was Buddhist Philosopher Alan Watts in his 'Wisdom Of Insecurity', who questioned the role of conditioned behavior and responses especially in advanced Western societies like the U.S. Watts contended that if behaviors are simply adopted and practiced without reflection  they easily become habituated and mechanical, especially if tied to values like national pride. There is then the potential they can become vehicles for propaganda.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current brouhaha over the national anthem as sports events - namely pro football- and players using it as a means to protest. At the same time, their exercise of their 1st amendment rights has triggered a ferocious backlash in some quarters, namely among militarists, nativist nationalists, American exceptionalists and others who place the value of the flag itself over the rights it is intended to represent.

This additional polarization is the last thing this nation needs given it is already up to its eyeballs in religious, political, racial and cultural polarization. No one appears to recall the famous words "united we stand, divided we fall."  So that our own internal divisions may be out ultimate security threat.

One letter appearing in The Denver Post yesterday had this to say about the issue of the national anthem at sports events, and caused me to wonder whether in fact it isn't time to drop it for most sports The key part - from James Aubrey of Denver - reads as follows:

"The deep source of my disappointment is the use of the national anthem to stir up an audience before a game of sport that doesn't have anything to do with national politics. 'The Star Spangled Banner' is appropriate enough at the Olympics, which immediately pits national teams against one another - but other athletic contests should be about athleticism, not patriotism. I'd like to see more separation between sport and state."

I believe he has made a sound point. This is apart from the fact most baseball and football fans don't really sing it anyway, they just mechanically mouth some of the words.  The fans already buying brats and beer at the concession stands don't even bother with that, they're more concerned with getting their snacks. And the ones in the rest room are more invested in voiding their bladders. "Anthem, what anthem, I gotta piss!" Let's not even get into the fact the song is inherently difficult to sing (few singers do it properly)  as pointed out recently by Prof. James McWhorter on 'AM Joy'. As he noted:

"As for the Star Spangled Banner, I don't care what anyone says, most people have not liked that song very much. It's difficult to sing and in a style that's frankly outdated  And all of a sudden it becomes this totem of being a moral American human being. when one poor man makes a statement about the most important racial issue of our time."

 MSNBC host Joy Reid observed, "it was written after the War of 1812 and has nothing to do with the founding of the country"

In other nations, say like Germany Austria and the UK, you seldom hear any anthems played at soccer matches or before a test cricket match. It just isn't done, it is uniquely American  - but one wonders why. It appears that over time (and faded memory)  it just became a habit, and is now  unthinkingly accepted as a natural part of a sports event.

You don't hear it before other events like the Academy Awards, so why baseball or football games?  Historically speaking, the first documented playing of the 'Star Spangled Banner' at a sporting event dates back to 1862.  But one is led to ask,  as Alan Watts might: At what specific event did it first become part of the national sporting fabric, such that it is now mechanically repeated each time?

Well, that appears to be the first game of the 1918 World Series, between the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs (the Cubbies now nearly 100 years later contending for another Series' berth).  The time, recall, was near the end of World War I which had already been beset with propaganda thanks to Edward Bernays. 

Bernays  began his career in Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Information. The objective was to drumbeat millions of recalcitrants into seeing the need for War. War to 'make the world safe for democracy' - in the words forged by Bernays first PR hacks. Later, much later - PR firms and sales-marketing departments would use the CPI as a template for their own efforts to mold the American mass mind.

Of course, Bernays left much more of a foundation for manipulative deceit than merely the CPI. For example, in 1923 he published what became the official manifesto of all future public relations 'Crystallizing Public Opinion'. As the title implies, the basic goal was to drumbeat the maximum number of 'the masses' into a homogeneous and consistent consent. But do it without their awareness. The key was to frame the content in such a way the person would believe it to be 'common sense', or 'patriotism' to accept it.

In this vein, the playing of a "national anthem" at the nation's premier sporting event, fit the role nicely. A stirring song played by a band in the 7th inning, fed by sport fans' enthusiasm and swelling pride translated to fervor for World War I patriotism. What's not for a respectable warmonger to like?  Besides, the fans loved it! They sang along with gusto, and even the players stood at attention.  Observing carefully the reactions, Bosox owner Harry Frazee decided to move the pomp and pageantry to the pre-game by the time the Series switched to Boston. The 'die' had been cast.

Having beheld such a captive audience entranced by the anthem and the 'red, white and blue' it was but a small step to keep on doing it, repeating it including for other sports venues. No surprise it was augmented - literally - with the advent of World War II and loudspeakers at stadiums. In the words of Mark Clague, an expert on the 'Star Spangled Banner' at the University of Michigan:

"The ritual of the national anthem became part of the war effort on the home front and said that sport is committed to all things American. It defines sports as American."

In other words, it's good propaganda and we already know propaganda guts nuanced response in favor of engrained, single dimension reactions and beliefs. In other words, it's the ideal vehicle for the control and manipulation of the mass mind and its emotions.  Indeed, Bernays' definitive work was  'Propaganda' - whose principles were to be later adopted wholesale by Goebbels and Reifenstahl. It was in this book that the master betrayed his intent to control the minds of the masses:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country."

And here we see for the first time the term 'invisible government', which Bernays equates to 'the true ruling power of the country. Seen in this light, the anthem is a totem for propaganda and control of the mass mind. It is such that for those affected it literally eviscerates the power of reason and sober discrimination as it upends all the principles inherent in our constitution. As an example, consider this twaddle written by another letter write also on the same topic as the earlier one in The Post:

"I encourage Brandon Marshall to take a walk through Fort Logan cemetery where white tombstones stand for what they believed. They knew that when you no longer have a flag or an anthem you no longer have a country."

But, in truth, a piece of fabric - even colored red, white and blue - and a song (one written near the end of the War of 1812) absolutely do not make a country. Rather its people make a country and their conscious articulation of their rights, as enshrined in their Constitution. Because it is that abstract  document which defines the unique nature of the country and the extent of the identity via liberties it grants to its people.

Those who fail to see that, as the letter writer above, are propagandized and likely habituated to only react in a certain fixed way. They are the ones who have spawned much of the outcry at the new protests using the anthem - and with it more polarization. Since we can't expect them to change it is why we need to cease the anthem for our sporting events. As one commentator in TIME recently put it (Sept. 26, p. 18):

"If fans are going to react so strongly to someone kneeling during the anthem - as if that somehow signals a blow to America itself - it's time to re-evaluate how patriotic the gesture really is."

Alan Watts himself would argue such over-reacting people are substituting the fabric for the country, the symbol for reality. They are taking an artificial entity and inflating it to reality in the same way a mindless person in a restaurant might treat the image of a juicy steak on a menu as the real meat- cut it out and eat it (Another example Watts gives of "mistaking the map for the territory")

We can retain the anthem for the Olympics (sung after each of our wins, like in swimming or women's gymnastics) or for military and government convocations, events, displays. But we ought to ditch it for all other sporting events, lest the propagandists end up having the last laugh and converting the rest of us into semi-conscious automatons.

45 Miles Away: Army To Get Rid Of 2,600 Tons Of Mustard Agent

Engineers prepare to get rid of more canisters with mustard agent

Barely 45 miles south of us lies the town of Pueblo, and nearby the Pueblo Chemical Depot.  This Depot contains more than 780,000 projectiles, many laden with a total of 2,611 tons of mustard agent - the stuff used to produce mustard gas.  This nasty crap can maim or kill by damaging skin and ravaging eyes and lungs.   Next week, the Army plans to begin operating a new $4.5 b plant (the Pueblo Chemical Agent Disposal Plant)   to destroy the country's largest remaining stockpile of mustard agent, to comply with an international treaty that bans chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, those of us living north of Pueblo are hoping everything goes just fine, no hitches, glitches or accidents. As per a Denver Post report several days ago, we're informed there are about 780,000 chemical -filled shells, which have remained in the area since at least the mid -1940s and the end of World War II.  By 1952, the Army began storing mustard agent in Pueblo, after being hauled from a manufacturing plant - the Rocky Mountain Arsenal - northeast of Denver. Over 35 years at least 90 leaks have been detected and dealt with. Over 200 Army guards have been posted at the site to maintain security.

The new plant itself is designed to be largely automated with robots - not humans - to be used in the actual dismantling of the shells . At full capacity the facility will be able to destroy 500 shells per day, so the project is expected to be completed by 2020.  Thus far, 580 shells and bottles of mustard agent have been destroyed mainly ones that were leaking.   They were placed in a sealed container, torn open with explosive charges then neutralized with chemicals. The way the process works only four to six shells can be destroyed per day.

Five of the  12 -foot tall yellow robots (run by workers at keyboards)  open the projectiles packed with liquid mustard agent - which freezes at 56 F. The robots then unscrew and remove caps on each projectile, drain the liquid into titanium containers. Later the robots inject 190 F water and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) after which bacteria is used to eat the residual chemicals,
.

Worker at Pueblo Chemical Depot getting outfitted for mustard agent disposal
 
Workers adjust monitoring equipment - to detect leaks.

Originally, the Republican-controlled congress in 1996 wanted to use incineration to get rid of the stuff. But then it was realized if any incompletely combusted mustard agent diffused into the atmosphere it might not exactly be the best thing.  Especially with two large population centers (Pueblo, Colorado Springs) not that far away.

So, the plan was altered to a more technical one involving low temperature, low pressure systems that first neutralize the chemicals and then unleash bacteria from sludge (imported from Pueblo's wastewater treatment plant) to eat the weapons' contents out of existence.   At the end, hopefully, no liquid waste will remain and a 'salt cake' sludge from filters will be hauled to a hazardous waste landfill. The residual emissions will be carefully filtered using a black stack above the facility.

A 1997 international treaty ordered eradication of all chemical weapons, outlawed since 1925, and the U.S. as an original signatory is obligated to comply. Foreign observers have been posted at the Pueblo, CO plant to verify destruction of the weapons.  In recent years, concerns over the deals intensified amidst cybersecurity threats and evidence that Islamic State and Syrian forces had used chemical weapons, including mustard gas.

Alas, full bore destruction of the mustard agent can't begin until officials issue a permit - expected in January.  Meanwhile, as of Wednesday, 80 projectiles have been dismantled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot.  All this paves the way for the full on disposal to be done at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Disposal Plant, which the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has already inspected to ensure safety.

The critical pilot testing is being done under a research, development and demonstration permit, according to CDPHE spokeswoman Jeanine Natterman, quoted in the Denver Post (Sept. 15, p. 6A). She added:

"The CDPHE does not believe the Pueblo Chemical Agent Disposal Plant will have a significant impact on air quality. The plant is considered only a minor source by the air pollution control division"

However, those in the vicinity can only hope that the CDPHE has more credibility than the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission in its claims for minimal fracking impacts. Many Coloradans are happy for the plant to open as it means employment for at least 2,000 - making it one of the largest employers in the state.  New jobs are expected to pay $40,000- $70,000 per year with health benefits.

Fortunately, the mustard agent cartridges are buried in "igloos" on a 35 square mile tract of land at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. We have to hope they are sufficiently protected from any would be terrorists - including domestic - out to make a statement, including "warming up the gas chambers".