Monthly Archives: Octombrie 2010

Unde începe Occidentul ?

Acolo unde apune soarele, adică unde se lasă întunericul. Simplu. Cu meritul suplimentar că, lunecînd spre metaforă, putem muta fără probleme discuția în afara planului fizico-geografic, dacă va fi cazul. Va fi.

De ce cu Oul mare precum un cap atins de hidrocefalie ? Nu știu precis.

Nu ne vom ascunde după deget, dovadă peremptorie a incompatibilității cu valorile occidentale fundamentale ale disimulării, și vom afirma că, în absența unor descoperiri noi, occidentul începe în Grecia antică. Cu certitudine există rădăcini mai vechi, amintite în Biblie, de exemplu, cum ar fi Sodoma, însă nu avem o localizare geografică și istorică sigură.

Cum, prin definiție, occidentul este o civilizație nocturnă, întunericul – cu subterfugiile lui cu tot – și-a pus amprenta, tușeul ar spune unii, de la început. Noaptea toate pisicile sînt negre. Cînd vin zorile, nu mai contează… actul a fost consumat.

Miturile grecilor antici nu sînt foarte clare, apucăturile da. Ale lor și ale zeilor. Nu neapărat în această ordine. În orice caz, un șablon care se va regăsi mereu în istorie poate fi identificat de pe acum.

Orice civilizație își cîștigă locul în lume prin război. Chiar atunci cînd e distrusă, dacă s-a înfoiat suficient, va fi amintită. Fie și pentru a fi înjurată. Războaiele se duc cu tot felul de arme. Cele mai vizibile rămîn cele clasice – bîta, sulița – și purtătoarele lor, armatele. Expansiunea, gloria imperială, cuceririle urmează aceeași curbă cu cea a virilității masculine.

Trebuie amintit că adevărata dragoste la grecii antici era considerată cea dintre doi tineri masculi, unul și mai tînăr, de obicei.

În faza ascendentă, legăturile care se stabilesc între tinerii puternici, plini de sevă, par să ajute la formarea unor războinici și armate invincibili/e. Probabil, energiile nocturne, nerisipite haotic precum la neoccidentali, se regăsesc pe cîmpul de luptă, unde sulița ridicată mai sus și azvîrlită mai cu putere, face diferența – comme on dit aujourd’hui.

Probele sînt, totuși, indirecte. Nu mai puțin solide. Ca exemplu, vom lua legiunea romană. Soldați ingineri. Se băteau, dar construiau și drumuri, poduri sau fortificații. Salt în timp. Cine se găsește reprezentativ la construirea de drumuri în epoca modernă? Pușcăriașul. Care este echivalentul legiunii romane astăzi? Armata americană. Cine are cea mai mare populație de pușcăriași din lume? America. Ce lege domnește în închisorile americane? Sodomia. Qed.

Ne întoarcem (conștienți că, pe măsură ce avansăm cu disertația de blog, înțelesul verbelor devine tot mai ambiguu). Civilizația grecilor antici a fost definită cel mai bine de războiul cu Troia. Admit, tot ceva discutabil, parte mit, parte literatură. De neocolit.

Ce avem acolo? O confruntare între cele două forțe dominante ale lumii. Homosexualii contra celorlați. Evident, lucrurile sînt mai complicate și e nevoie de finețe pentru a descifra anumite semnificații. Pentru aceasta ne aflăm aici.

Homer, propagandist al partidei învingătoare, nu știm sigur dacă homosexual (în ciuda rădăcinii prinse în numele său), aduce elogiul, abia mascat pe alocuri, ideologiei, practicilor și tehnicilor homo.

Să luăm (idem) pretextul. Un băiat iubea o fată, o fură ca să o facă a lui. End of story – comme on dit aujourd’hui. Ți-ai găsit ! Grecii strigă crimă ! Lasă baltă toate muierile, descrise ca demente, asasine, clarvăzătoare defetiste, închistate care apoi țes obsesiv și suspect cîte un deceniu, mă rog. Se îngrămădesc în trireme (echivalentul sălilor de fitness din închisorile americane) și năvălesc peste Troia. Ca să o „elibereze” pe Elena? Să fim serioși ! Să reamintim, ne aflăm în Grecia antică, extrem de libertină, pe continentul format în urma unui act de bestialitate, unde incestul sau canibalismul sînt privite cu detașare, iar adulterul nici nu știu dacă era definit. Aaa, dacă o privim pe Elena ca proprietate, atunci ar fi fost vorba de hoție. Nu se verifică ipoteza recuperării bunului furat, bairamul prelungit 10 ani, sfîrșit într-o orgie a cruzimii înspăimîntătoare în urma unei înșelăciuni dosnice, pusă în cîrca ezitantului, fidelului, suspectului Ulise, toate acestea ne spun o cu totul altă poveste. 

Care este personajul detestabil ? Ulise. Individ pentru a cărui denigrare a fost necesară scrierea unui al doilea tom, avertisment pentru derbedeii care tratează femeile cu oareșce interes autentic.

Sărim pentru a integra. Influența occidentală în limba română: cur. Influența slavă: pizdă. Rusia – singurul imperiu care nu o încasează definitiv, singurul imperiu care nu reușeste să treacă de un provincialism paralizant. Explicația e simplă. Vor să stea/întoarcă lîngă femeile lor, se sleiesc dacă hălăduiesc aiurea prea mult timp. Vrei un imperiu la minut? Apelezi la un Alexandru, la SS, la conquistadori, la troțkiști, la alte cluburi de băieți de băieți. Nu durează, pasiune oarbă, hachițe, lubrifiere deficitară (vezi cazul tancurilor germane cărora le-a înghețat uleiul în buza Moscovei), dar ai pe planetă sturm und drang cît cuprinde.

Alt exemplu de neamuri fundamental neoccidentale – vikingii. Veneau, prădau, o tăiau acasă. Cînd s-au hotărît, au dus casa cu ei, au contribuit la formarea cîtorva viitoare state occidentale și a Rusiei. După care, în funcție de gradul de dedulcire, s-au occidentalizat sau nu. 

Moment în care trebuie să abordăm problema fundamentală a dedulcirii.

Schimbare radicală de cap compas, pe post de introducere la noua temă. Toate religiile monoteiste sînt antioccidentale. Reciproca se vede.

Cu evreii – iudaismul – e clar. Abraham, înclinat spre tranzacții, obține aproape o amnistie totală pentru sodomiți, cu condiția ca măcar 10 inși (citește capi de familie) să nu se fi dedulcit. Auditul nu a confirmat. Așadar, dedulcirea, odată inițiată, va cuprinde totul. Dovada indirectă și prin parabolă, distrugătorii Iudeei au fost romanii în plină perioadă de glorie și desfrîu – avertisment esențial. Messalina, încercarea disperată a neoccidentalilor de a salva Roma, eșuează lamentabil. Dar să nu ne împrăștiem excesiv.

Creștinismul nu se împacă de la început, bisericile creștine nici atît. Roma cade și prin transformarea de substanță, dedulciții epuizați nu mai pot ridica sulița, barbari diverși se amuză pe seama lor, imperiul se destramă și rămîne biserica. Printr-o acțiune subterană, forțele antioccidentale străpung structura șubrezită de viciul obosit și o dărîmă.

Lecție pe care occidentalii o învață. Unde găsim primele semne ale resurecției? În Grecia, surprise-surprise – comme on dit aujourd’hui, bucata de imperiu rămasă întreagă, creștinată, latină la început, grecizată tot mai mult pînă cînd viciul vechi se revigorează. Dar cum? Statul bizantin începe să le-o tragă pe la spate italienilor și altor germanici amestecați cu ce-a rămas dintre cetățenii Romei. Mai la vest decît grecii, dar mai puțin occidentalizați ca ei. O biserică catolică umilită de mofturile de grandoare ale împăraților reacționează. Găsește un nemulțumit local – Carol cel Mare – și dă peste mînă puterii tot mai dedulcite din Bizanț. Dovada indirectă: pe fondul dedulcirii apare al treilea val monoteist antioccidental – islamul. Care se propagă ca prin brînză cam în toate direcțiile, mai ales pentru că nu avea adversar conceptual. Cu Bizanțul se luptă. Nu, cum se credea pînă acum, pentru diferențele religioase. Cei mai proaspeți nededulciți se ciocnesc de dedulciți aflați într-o fază avansată. Rezultatul va fi interesant și va complica tabloul și mai mult. Oricum, menționăm în trecere că islamul a încercat să se blindeze, cîte 4 neveste de fiecare, supuse și harnice. Doar, doar.

Doar că nu. Arabii n-au reușit. I-au sîcîit și niște occidentali din cei furnizori de imperii la minut, ascunși sub flamură de cruciați, cu ordine militare de băieți, unul ars pe rug prin reprezentanți exact sub acuzația de dedulcire dar, mai ales, au căzut în huzurul blegitor de imperii. A fost nevoie de turci, proaspeți, călări. Întotdeauna se găsește o rezervă de turci pe undeva.

Nu mai insist, lucrurile se vor complica, occidentalii se vor fofila prin toate vremurile, adesea condamnîndu-se pe față pentru a cîștiga putere prin dos. Ceilalți vor da dovadă de inconsecvență, luptele se duc pe multe planuri.

Din amiciție, voi încerca altădată să lămuresc problema Ungariei, argumenînd de ce nu poate fi considerată occidentală, oricît de mult mi-aș fi dorit. Cum nu voi putea să nu încerc o descifrare a semnificației occident-ului și ouest-ului, dovadă lingvistică clară pentru lupta care încă se mai dă între occidentali și ceilalți.

Mi-am propus aici să arăt unde începe, nu unde se sfîrșește.

În concluzie, occidentul începe în noi… dacă nu sîntem atenți.

Ce mai e de spus !?

Prostia doare. Nu îi doare pe proști sau îi doare mai tîrziu, cînd prostia te mușcă și își face simțite efectele, chiar atunci cînd îți aparține (pe a altuia o simți mai repede).

Nu îi doare pe cei care fac pe proștii, dovadă indirectă, dar sigură, a complicității. Doar pe victimele lor.

Ultima aberație, confirmată indirect prin bălmăjeală… în direct de Năstase și Antonescu :  eventualul independent care să ocupe poziția de prim-ministru, dacă moțiunea de cenzură va avea succes, ar putea fi nimeni altul decît terminatorul Isărescu. Doamne ferește !

Partidele acceptate de către străini pentru că le fac jocul trebuie să dispară. Bye, bye. Nu vrem să ne scrieți.

>>> AFARĂ cu FMI din țară ! – sloganul cheie al manifestației militarilor. <<<

Doamne ajută !

O altă imponderabilă

Dwight D. Eisenhower – Farewell Address

 Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other – Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling – on my part – of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations – corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations – past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament – of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that – in that – in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources – scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

 

Scrisoarea de demisie din APS a lui Harold Lewis

APSAmerican Physical Society

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/harold-lewis-scathing-resignation-letter-from-the-aps/

*****
Voi pune și discursul de adio al lui Eisenhower. Poate mă învrednicesc să traduc măcar partea despre complexul științifico-tehnologic. Găsesc eu și înregistrarea video completă.

Zodia vîrcolacului sau Vremea lui (se completează de FmIuEciA) -vodă

(mpm) Moonshadow

(mpm) Listening Wind

E toamnă iar