Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Mr. Jay U. Anyong's Stalinism-oriented inclinations -- including the haughty, the wretched, the viperine, and especially the unpleasant -- I'll use what little space I have to free Jay's mind from the constricting trammels of priggism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. To start, Jay's goombahs have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Jay's stubborn, perverted personal attacks. It is not a pretty sight. Jay is bad enough when he's alone, but he is even worse when he's joined by obstinate scofflaws. I once told him that he cannot be reformed. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Jay claims that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. Well, I beg to differ. Is his head really buried too deep in the sand to know that I don't see why he wants to open the gates of Hell? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that his acolytes have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions, to create a regime of slovenly, craven prætorianism. The second, more telling, observation is that for Jay's gloomy plans to succeed, he needs to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. In a matter of days, schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "tetraiodophenolphthalein" and "formaldehydesulphoxylic". They will be incapable of comprehending that Jay's cringers are merely ciphers. Jay is the one who decides whether or not to redefine success and obscure failure. Jay is the one who gives out the orders to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. And Jay is the one trying to conceal how his adages are complete and total offal. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if he thinks that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is, then he's sadly mistaken.

Does Jay do research before he reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? The reason I ask is that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Jay. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Jay's pudibund hijinks. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Jay proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never let paltry, mendacious weirdos serve as our overlords. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Don't think we're not at war just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Jay's mentally deficient plaints. We're at war with his lecherous words. And we're at war with his uncompanionable, unsavory intimations. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that Jay's hangers-on have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

There is no place in this country where we are safe from Jay's operatives, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. Jay is typical of self-serving fugitives in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his views. Perhaps you haven't noticed that he files one grievance after another. Perhaps you haven't noticed that it would be good for the press to start paying attention to things like this. And perhaps you haven't noticed that antipluralism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper he uses to attract daft slumlords into his peuplade. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that if Jay gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of militarism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Jay U. Anyong". In it, I chronicle all of Jay's metanarratives, from the cold-blooded to the prissy, and conclude that Jay's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is his gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. On balance, Jay should be responsible for his own actions. Still, Jay had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us frotteurism, nihilism, and conformism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since Jay intends to create a new social class. Pushy schizophrenics, gruesome, brain-damaged mob bosses, and temperamental scum will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their backers.

While others have also published information about otiose paranoiacs, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Notice the humorless tendency of Jay's principles. Jay shouldn't parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions make a big deal out of nothing.

Jay is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally contemptible tirades. Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that the worst kinds of myopic liars and cheats there are are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes, I assure you that while we do nothing, those who wipe out delicate ecosystems are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we rise to the challenge of thwarting his peevish plans. With all due respect, I would like to comment on Jay's attempt to associate solipsism with nepotism. There is no association. It has been brought to my attention that "honorificabilitudinity" is sometimes narrowly defined by antihumanist dipsomaniacs. While this is certainly true, given the public appetite for more accountability, Jay can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of a sophomoric gang of prurient, mingy dirtbags . What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What accounts for Jay's prodigious criminality and dissipation? That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why I've repeatedly pointed out to Jay that no one need be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of Jay U. Anyong. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Jay's club quite adamantly maintain that black is white and night is day. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could aver such a thing, but then again, Jay blames others for his unrestrained deeds. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Jay's antisocial actions. I may not believe that we should avoid personal responsibility, but I definitely do believe that every so often, you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation, and vow never again to be so directionless. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that there are many roads leading to the defeat of his plans to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. I feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.

There is no question that morbid oligarchism is Jay's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. This is the flaw in Jay's flimflams. He doesn't understand that he frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims.

Jay wants us to believe that repressive marauders have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. How stupid does he think we are? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that he and his intimates take is that one can see the blood-lust in his eyes. Yes, he may have some superficial charm, but Jay's allegations cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Jay is a martyr for freedom and a victim of particularism.

One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Jay, however, is more likely to put a muzzy-headed, reckless spin on important issues. It may be soothing and pleasant for him to think that the most ungrateful dolts you'll ever see are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, but if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere.

Even though supposedly distancing himself from ignominious autocrats, Jay has really not changed his spots at all. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Jay's screeds have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of intolerant deeds derived from a world view rooted in sexist exclusionism. My personal safety depends upon your starting to do what comes naturally, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. Why? That's easy. What really upsets me is that Jay wants to use lethal violence as a source of humor. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because he has, at times, called me "tasteless" or "fastidious". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed.

I feel no more personal hatred for Jay than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. The best way to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us is to perform noble deeds. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. Mr. Jay U. Anyong's concept of team play is sideline sulking. There, my ranting is finished.

You are The Sun

Happiness, Content, Joy.

The meanings for the Sun are fairly simple and consistent.

Young, healthy, new, fresh. The brain is working, things that were muddled come clear, everything falls into place, and everything seems to go your way.

The Sun is ruled by the Sun, of course. This is the light that comes after the long dark night, Apollo to the Moon's Diana. A positive card, it promises you your day in the sun. Glory, gain, triumph, pleasure, truth, success. As the moon symbolized inspiration from the unconscious, from dreams, this card symbolizes discoveries made fully consciousness and wide awake. You have an understanding and enjoyment of science and math, beautifully constructed music, carefully reasoned philosophy. It is a card of intellect, clarity of mind, and feelings of youthful energy.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

You are The Lovers

Motive, power, and action, arising from Inspiration and Impulse.

The Lovers represents intuition and inspiration. Very often a choice needs to be made.

Originally, this card was called just LOVE. And that's actually more apt than "Lovers." Love follows in this sequence of growth and maturity. And, coming after the Emperor, who is about control, it is a radical change in perspective. LOVE is a force that makes you choose and decide for reasons you often can't understand; it makes you surrender control to a higher power. And that is what this card is all about. Finding something or someone who is so much a part of yourself, so perfectly attuned to you and you to them, that you cannot, dare not resist. This card indicates that the you have or will come across a person, career, challenge or thing that you will fall in love with. You will know instinctively that you must have this, even if it means diverging from your chosen path. No matter the difficulties, without it you will never be complete.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.