I do not like boxing — not because of any philosophical objections to two men trying to assault each other in a ring, but rather because I’ve seen so much fake boxing in movies that the real thing is boring (not to mention crooked). But on the other hand, boxers are fun to read about because unlike in most sports where most athletes are expected to show some respect for their opponents, in boxing it is pretty much the reverse.

For example, Lennox Lewis said one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard a sports star say. Asked about a rematch with Mike Tyson, Lewis said he still wanted to go through with the fight adding that, “Mike Tyson is a biter, but Lennox Lewis is a fighter.” Okay, not quite Ali-esque, but then again Lewis isn’t running around calling for the death of people in interracial relationships like Ali did either.

ESPN had a story on the fight where somebody asked Lewis if he felt he had any sort of moral obligation one way or another in regard to going through with a fight with Tyson, and Lewis said, “The moral obligation is to go in and give him a whipping.”

On the other hand, the bizarre thing is that this whole debacle shows that boxing is even more fake than professional wrestling. In any other sport, a Lewis/Tyson match would never happen because Tyson is such a joke these days he has no shot at actually beating Lewis. Lewis apparently wants the fight just so he can say he beat Tyson. That may have meant something a decade ago, but it will be a meaningless victory. That’d be a bit like the St. Louis Rams saying they want to face the Detroit Lions in the Super Bowl. Yeah, that’d really show the critics.

NASA wants to your input on what its main objectives should be.

My suggestion is that they mount an expedition to Talos 4.

Apparently George W. Bush is going to ask for a $48 billion increase in the defense budget during his State of the Union Address tonight. How big is $48 billion?

In 2000, the entire international arms trade was a mere $29.3 billion according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. That means just the increase Bush is proposing would be enough to buy every single weapon sold by one country to another in 2000, and still have $18.7 billion left over.

Can anyone guess who the number one exporter and importer of weapons were in 2000?

Surprise — the number one exporter of weapons was the United States, which accounted for half of all international arms sales, and the number on importer was Saudi Arabia.

Every time it seems like Michael Bellesiles is going to dig himself out of his academic fraud scandal, he just keeps making the situation worse. Bellesiles, of course, wrote Arming America which was praised when it was published for its bold thesis that the American gun culture was a product of post-Civil War America, and that prior to that time few Americans owned weapons.

This claim started to unravel thanks to efforts by gun rights activists as well as academics who were paying attention and decided to see whether or not there were serious problems with Bellesiles’ book.

One of the most contentious claims in this debate revolves around San Francisco probate records from the late 19th century. In his book, Bellesiles claimed that he reviewed probate records from this period and reports on his findings. The problem is that almost all of these records were lost in a fire in 1906.

Bellesiles recently claimed that he had, in fact, located the missing probate records. In a recent reply to his critics, Bellesiles wrote,

I was not hallucinating when I read the San Francisco probate files. They are housed in the California History Center. (Complicating matters is the fact that the center, where I read these files in 1993, moved last year, and it does not have a web site.)

. . .

I have sent photocopies (just the first few pages of three files, each of which contained dozens of pages) to several people, including a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, who is working on an article, and the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Organization of American Historians newsletter. I also plan to scan a few pages onto my web site (www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/index.html).

The California History Center, like many other archives, is oriented toward genealogy. Most of the material is therefore organized alphabetically, making it difficult to locate records from specific years. Additionally, the staff appeared unaware that they had any probate materials in their collection, though they actually have a great deal. But then my contention, like that of every historian I know, is that one must actually go to the archives in order to properly discover and examine historical documents. Historical research cannot be conducted from an office easy chair via the telephone and web.

Unfortunately for him, almost everything in these three paragraphs appears to be yet more dissembling by Bellesiles.

First, there is no organization called the California History Center. What Bellesiles visited was, in fact, the Contra Costa Country Historical Society, and it most certainly does have a web site.

The CCCHS was surprised when it started fielding calls from reporters about the controversy, and even more surprised that Bellesiles was spinning a fairy tale involving their center.

The most damning part of the CCCHS rebuttal to Bellesiles is that the documents that he photocopied and faxed to journalists are not San Francisco probate files. According to the CCCHS,

1. Every identifiable estate in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County estate, not a San Francisco County estate.

2. Every identifiable decedent in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County resident, not a San Francisco County resident.

3. Every judge who signed orders in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County judge, not a San Francisco County judge.

4. The only clerk who signed an order in the 26 pages signed as “Clerk” of the “Probate Court Contra Costa County.”

…

5. Bellesiles makes reference to 1872 tax assessment records and includes a copy of one in the 26 pages. Its heading is: “Assessment List, County of Contra Costa, 1872-73.” This is from a Contra Costa County taxpayer and taxing authority, not from San Francisco.

Examining the 26 pages of Bellesiles’ probate records that were supplied to us, it appears that Professor Bellesiles merely photocopied estate documents that contained the word “San Francisco” somewhere in them. For example, one of his documents was an affidavit from a San Francisco newspaper that ran an advertisement for a Contra Costa County estate sale: “Pursuant to an order of the Hon. the Probate Court of the county of Contra Costa . . . in the town of Martinez.” This affidavit, signed by a San Francisco notary public, states that it is a Contra Costa County estate. There was no newspaper in Contra Costa County until 1858, therefore it was common practice to publish legal notices in the San Francisco newspaper.

It is really difficult to imagine the thought process going on in Bellisles’ head. Certainly he had to know he would be called to the carpet for such shoddy research methods. Either he is intentionally deceitful or he’s one of the worst scholars working in academia.

Source:

Notes on Supposed San Francisco Records in the Contra Costa County Historical Society History Center. Contra Costa County Historical Society, January 2002.

A lot of people seem to be linking to this site which purports to show an attack on what is claimed to be a Taliban vehicle. Whether or not the photos themselves are fake is debatable, but these pictures have been floating around the Internet for more than a year now.

Assuming they are genuine, and since that is a Russian vehicle there getting blown to bits, this scene probably represents a Russian vehicle getting taken out by a mine set by Chechen rebels who hung around to videotape their escapades.