Sunday, February 29, 2004
Some time ago a Loyal Reader sent me an opinion piece claiming to have a foolproof way to predict the winner of the presidential election. To wit, the winner will be the candidate who people would like to party with. Bush over Gore, Clinton over Dole and Bush I, Bush I over Dukakis, Reagan over Mondale and Carter. It seems to make sense. Kind of breaks down when you get to Carter over Ford (IMO), but no system is ever perfect. So:
Bush would probably be fun to hang out with, though the word 'party' seems inappropriate. He'd make a much better drinking game (One sip of beer every time he makes reference to religion, one shot (your choice) every time he mispronounces a word, smash your glass over your head every time he says ‘activist judge,’ etc).
I'd definitely party with Lieberman (who I'm including only because of my widely publicized, ahem, support for his candidacy), but I'd do it on Friday night, so he'd leave at sundown.
I'd party with Edwards if he offered to pick up the check.
I wouldn't party with Kerry. No way. He's just too plastic, and I mean that literally. You sit down, you have a couple drinks and start to relax and THAT'S when he rips off the mask and reveals himself as the bug-eyed alien monster he really is. And it turns out the working title of his last book was 'How to Serve Humans.' Get it? Adkins diet? No problem. Eat all the tasty earthlings you want!
And what's with presidential candidates all having new (ghost-written) books out, anyway?
One more thing, unrelated. I just finished another book (!), 'The Case For Israel' by Alan Dershowitz. Pretty good, though it read a little like a series of op-ed pieces. Contained a lot of history that I didn't know about. I do wonder if the book was tilted; that is, 'the Israelis accepted the settlement/peace treaty/whatever but the Arabs rejected it on the grounds that a Jewish state would still exist,' over and over. However another source provides this: Asked about recent U.S. vows to maintain a hard line with North Korea, South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se Hyun responded, "North Korea is a weak state. The U.S. is a superpower. So if the U.S. shows more flexibility, we'll have more possibility of resolving the nuclear issue during the coming talks."
Here's what occurs to me: the strong/rich/successful nation is responsible; the weak/poor/unsuccessful one is not. Think about that the next time you hear international criticism of the USA.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Heard these on the radio this morning and decided to save them for posterity.
1) An atom walks into a bar and orders a double. The bartender pours the drink and says, "you look lousy. What's wrong?" The atom replies, "I just lost an electron." "Are you sure?" "I'm positive."
2) Sodium walks into a bar, sees Chlorine sitting there, attacks him and kicks his ass. Later he's arrested for assault. Get it? Say it aloud.
3) There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Really haven't felt like writing lately. Just seems like everything that comes to mind is a rehash of stuff I've already done. To wit:
1) The 'Bush lied about WMD' thing is played. It's just 'Bush made up a reason to go to war,' which in essence is itself a made-up reason to criticize Bush. And the 'should have gone to the UN' thing? Please. This is what I can't stand about John Kerry.
[By the way, I'm sure it's occurred to many people already, but if it wasn't for Dean, do you think Kerry and Edwards would have voted against the $87 billion?]
2) North Korea needs to provide total transparency, no strings attached, to weapons inspectors and human rights groups, and to start standing down its on-line forces. Only then should we consider sending aid.
3) If you strip away the religion and tradition, 'marriage' is just a government-sanctioned contract between two people. The government should be willing to grant it to all or to none.
You see what I mean. However I have been reading a book about the Riemann Hypothesis (warning: it's a little on the arcane side). "All non-trivial zeroes of the Zeta function have real part one-half." The thing is, once definitions for 'Zeta function' and 'real part' have been provided, I actually know enough math to understand it. Scary.
Mind you I can't tell you what the hypothesis is good for. It has something to do with determining the number of primes in a given range. It hasn't actually been proven yet, and was included in David Hilbert's speech at the International Congress of Mathematicians in August, 1900 as #8 in a list of 23 mathematical problems that needed solving in the new century.
Mister Pterodactyl: educating the masses since November 2003.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
I got this article from a newsgroup I subscribe to. It's one of the most compelling I've had in quite a while. Here's a brief summary:
1) NK's food crisis was brought on by it's own government, not by any natural disaster or outside interference.
2) The only real way to end that crisis is reform, not aid.
3) It is therefore immoral to continue trying to appease and prop up Kim's regime.
4) Let's not forget who the good guys are here.
Side note: the USA is the most powerful and successful nation in history for a reason, and that reason is not size or resources, though they are a factor. The real reason is twofold; democracy and free markets. Other nations who want to emulate our success would do well to emulate that first. Forsooth.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Just in case any of my thousands of readers are Smallville watchers: I need to be on record regarding the new character, Adam, whose entire family is dead and who has really really bad dreams. I'm not gonna come right out with it, but...
1: His name isn't Adam.
2: He isn't from Metropolis.
More on this topic as I feel like it.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Two weeks ago I ordered a window sign from the Lieberman campaign, and the sonofabitch came today. Aarrgh.
Gee Dub it is.
Monday, February 02, 2004
I'm overreacting today. Here's something from Steven Den Beste, in which he discusses another article. The money quote:
“My kid is in the fifth grade,” Omar Bagour,a columnist for Al Madina and a professor of economics at King Abdul Aziz University, told me. “Out of twelve subjects, seven are pure religion You tell me a system of this nature is going to bring into the labor force a highly qualified Saudi? Bullshit.” The religious establishment, however, wants education to become even more Islamic. “Educational systems of atheist nations and civilizations cannot be like the systems of a believing nation,” Saalih Ibn Humayd, a Saudi cleric, warned in a recent speech.
Now read this, via Instapundit.
In the past, [Georgia Superintendent of Schools Kathy] Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools.
"I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate.
Like I said, I'm overreacting - this is a hell of a stretch. But I'd like to know what 'competing theories' she's talking about. Other than, you know, that one. I also wonder if there's more on the agenda.