Looks like Bush is going to win
The media is already hyping up a close contest between Kerry and Bush. They are bringing forth memories of Election 2000. The polls are indicating a slight lead for Kerry. One thorn may be Nader's candidacy, which would cut into the Democratic party's nominee's vote total. But Nader or no, is this contest going to be close?
Maybe, but maybe not. In any case it is still looking like a Bush win. This is because Bush has still lost only four of the 13 Lichtman keys. He has lost number 7, the policy key (no good policies), number 10, foreign or military failure (Planeattack, aka "9/11"), number 12, incumbent charisma (he is not charismatic), and number 6, long-term economy (because of the dot-com bust). He has lost no others. He does have Key 1, mandate (because of the 2002 elections) and Key 3 incumbency (he's the President). I don't see him losing the other keys right now. There is still no Republican challenger (Key 2), and Ralph Nader (Key 4, third party) does not count, as he hurts Democrats, not Republicans. There is no social unrest (Key 8), incipient scandals are evaporating (Key 9), Saddam was captured (ensuring Key 11, foreign or military success), Kerry is not charismatic (Key 13), and the economy is improving, so he probably has Key 5.
It could be a close win. Incumbents have lost 9 keys and still lost by a whisker. It could be a landslide. Johnson won handily over Goldwater despite losing 3 keys. But the Lichtman Key system says right now, no matter how it comes, that Bush will win.
What would change the prospect of a Bush victory? First, the economy would have to sputter. Higher gasoline prices may do just that by election day. Then some real scandal would have to develop; it would have to lead to many convictions and jail terms (as with Teapot Dome or Watergate), or lead to an impeachment or virtually certain impeachment of the President (as with Nixon and Clinton). Or social unrest would have to develop; this would have to be on the scale of 1964-1968, with its race riots and massive antiwar demonstrations. Or the Democrats would have to nominate someone who is charismatic. They may do better with Edwards than Kerry; Edwards shows signs of possibly being charismatic. If for example, Edwards is nominated, turns out to be charismatic, and the economy takes a downturn, Bush will be defeated. However, right now, none of this is happening, so Bush will win the popular vote. That shows another avenue happening: a reverse 2000 wherein Kerry or Edwards gets the electoral vote and Bush the popular, maybe by the Democrat winning several big states by slim margins. But for Bush to be defeated, something has to happen, polls or no.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2004/02/22
2004/02/17
The Three JFKs
Recently I noticed an interesting coincidence concerning Presidents and Presidential candidates. Three of them are JFKs. Huhh, you say. JFK is obviously President John F. Kennedy.
But note now we have a Democratic candidate, the likely one to face Bush this fall, who is a JFK: John F. Kerry. (His middle name is Forbes, as in the business magazine). In fact, both John F. Kennedy and John F. Kerry are John F. Ke*y, where * is a wild card expression. This has some people comparing Kerry to Kennedy. But that isn't all. Both Kerry and Kennedy are Massachusetts senators. It is really quite a coincidence. Because of this, we cannot refer to John F. Kennedy anymore as JFK. He has to be called JFK 1 or JFK I, and Kerry is JFK 2 or JFK II.
But wait. There is yet another President that is a JFK! This means Kerry is JFK the Third. This is Bill Clinton. What, you say? Where is JFK in William Jefferson Clinton? One could say JeFferson Klinton, but this is contrived. In his case, it is not in his name. It is in his birthdate. President Clinton was born on 1946 August 19, and the supercompressed date for that begins with JFK. In fact, Clinton was born on JFKJ. So Bill Clinton is a JFK too. In fact, the three presidents (or candidate) all have similar policies. They all tend to be liberal. So JFK is a good presidential set of initials. If you have them or were born in 1946 August or on 58 March 20 (that is, March 20 of any year ending with 58, including 1958 March 20), then consider running for President.
Furthermore, I'm a JFK too. I was born in 1946 August. So maybe I'll run for President one of these days…
Recently I noticed an interesting coincidence concerning Presidents and Presidential candidates. Three of them are JFKs. Huhh, you say. JFK is obviously President John F. Kennedy.
But note now we have a Democratic candidate, the likely one to face Bush this fall, who is a JFK: John F. Kerry. (His middle name is Forbes, as in the business magazine). In fact, both John F. Kennedy and John F. Kerry are John F. Ke*y, where * is a wild card expression. This has some people comparing Kerry to Kennedy. But that isn't all. Both Kerry and Kennedy are Massachusetts senators. It is really quite a coincidence. Because of this, we cannot refer to John F. Kennedy anymore as JFK. He has to be called JFK 1 or JFK I, and Kerry is JFK 2 or JFK II.
But wait. There is yet another President that is a JFK! This means Kerry is JFK the Third. This is Bill Clinton. What, you say? Where is JFK in William Jefferson Clinton? One could say JeFferson Klinton, but this is contrived. In his case, it is not in his name. It is in his birthdate. President Clinton was born on 1946 August 19, and the supercompressed date for that begins with JFK. In fact, Clinton was born on JFKJ. So Bill Clinton is a JFK too. In fact, the three presidents (or candidate) all have similar policies. They all tend to be liberal. So JFK is a good presidential set of initials. If you have them or were born in 1946 August or on 58 March 20 (that is, March 20 of any year ending with 58, including 1958 March 20), then consider running for President.
Furthermore, I'm a JFK too. I was born in 1946 August. So maybe I'll run for President one of these days…
2004/02/10
A post card for Dean
Well, today was the Big Day. Yesterday I got a post card from a campaign worker asking that I vote for Howard Dean. She did it on a special Dean postcard, and it was handwritten. I could tell that she was fairly young. This is how I like to see it. She appealed to me with a handwritten, rather than a typewritten or computer printed note; this takes more effort to do. She told me the reasons: he would improve health care and so forth.
I feel this candidate has gotten a bum rap. It seemed strange to me as to why his candidacy floundered. He made some "gaffes", but so did the other candidates, such as Gephardt with his negative ads and Kerry with his flip-flopping on support for the Iraq war. The "Dean scream" was no more than the shouting that occurs at a football game. His ideas are mostly similar to the other Democratic candidates. I don't think Bush is to blame, unless he is to blame because he wants him to be his opponent. I don't think the other candidates are to blame. Mondale and Hart had a war with each other in 1984, and it did not affect their candidacies; Hart usually finished strong and Mondale won the nomination. I don't think voters are to blame, unless it is because they don't read things critically, but that touches on who the real culprit is.
The hypermedia. That's who. They pick every statement of his apart. That was the way with the Osama remark, for instance. Dr. Dean insisted on the presumption in this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and Dean defended even Osama's rights under that presumption. The media would rather that he deny Osama this privilege, an action that violates the Declarational principle that all people are created with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The same with the other mistakes Dean has made, although the other candidates have made mistakes, also.
Well who did I vote for? I wish I could vote for all the Democratic candidates. All of them would be better than Bush. I went with the Lichtman Keys in picking who I voted for. The only way the challenging party can affect the outcome is to nominate a charismatic candidate, and Edwards comes the closest to being charismatic. So I voted for Edwards.
I thank the post card writer for sending me that card. It did make me consider voting for Dean briefly. We need to see more of that personal touch in politics.
Well, today was the Big Day. Yesterday I got a post card from a campaign worker asking that I vote for Howard Dean. She did it on a special Dean postcard, and it was handwritten. I could tell that she was fairly young. This is how I like to see it. She appealed to me with a handwritten, rather than a typewritten or computer printed note; this takes more effort to do. She told me the reasons: he would improve health care and so forth.
I feel this candidate has gotten a bum rap. It seemed strange to me as to why his candidacy floundered. He made some "gaffes", but so did the other candidates, such as Gephardt with his negative ads and Kerry with his flip-flopping on support for the Iraq war. The "Dean scream" was no more than the shouting that occurs at a football game. His ideas are mostly similar to the other Democratic candidates. I don't think Bush is to blame, unless he is to blame because he wants him to be his opponent. I don't think the other candidates are to blame. Mondale and Hart had a war with each other in 1984, and it did not affect their candidacies; Hart usually finished strong and Mondale won the nomination. I don't think voters are to blame, unless it is because they don't read things critically, but that touches on who the real culprit is.
The hypermedia. That's who. They pick every statement of his apart. That was the way with the Osama remark, for instance. Dr. Dean insisted on the presumption in this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and Dean defended even Osama's rights under that presumption. The media would rather that he deny Osama this privilege, an action that violates the Declarational principle that all people are created with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The same with the other mistakes Dean has made, although the other candidates have made mistakes, also.
Well who did I vote for? I wish I could vote for all the Democratic candidates. All of them would be better than Bush. I went with the Lichtman Keys in picking who I voted for. The only way the challenging party can affect the outcome is to nominate a charismatic candidate, and Edwards comes the closest to being charismatic. So I voted for Edwards.
I thank the post card writer for sending me that card. It did make me consider voting for Dean briefly. We need to see more of that personal touch in politics.
Maybe it's not over
The Virginia and Tennessee primary results are in. Kerry again wins by huge margins over Edwards, Clark, Dean and the others. So is Kerry a foregone conclusion for the Democratic nomination? Probably, but not certain. There is one last-ditch strategy the others can do, and that is to combine forces. Edwards and Clark could agree to an Edwards-Clark ticket and pool their votes; Clark looks like he is at the end of his line anyway. Then when Dean loses in Wisconsin, try to get his supporters to go for Edwards-Clark, and maybe pick up the support of Kucinich and Sharpton as well. Such a combination would have overwhelmed Kerry in Tennessee, for instance. Even this may not work: in many states, including Virginia, Kerry would still win. Further, this combining together would inhibit Kerry from selecting any of them as his vice presidential running mate, and would force him to go for someone who might not work as well, such as John Warner of Virginia or Evin Bayh of Indiana. These two people could put Virginia or Indiana in the Democratic column, but would not have the South-sweeping potential that I believe Edwards would have. So it looks like Kerry for President, and I would advise him to select Edwards for his running mate to shoot for taking both Carolinas and maybe several other southern states as well. And I wish Kerry the best of luck in defeating Bush this autumn.
The Virginia and Tennessee primary results are in. Kerry again wins by huge margins over Edwards, Clark, Dean and the others. So is Kerry a foregone conclusion for the Democratic nomination? Probably, but not certain. There is one last-ditch strategy the others can do, and that is to combine forces. Edwards and Clark could agree to an Edwards-Clark ticket and pool their votes; Clark looks like he is at the end of his line anyway. Then when Dean loses in Wisconsin, try to get his supporters to go for Edwards-Clark, and maybe pick up the support of Kucinich and Sharpton as well. Such a combination would have overwhelmed Kerry in Tennessee, for instance. Even this may not work: in many states, including Virginia, Kerry would still win. Further, this combining together would inhibit Kerry from selecting any of them as his vice presidential running mate, and would force him to go for someone who might not work as well, such as John Warner of Virginia or Evin Bayh of Indiana. These two people could put Virginia or Indiana in the Democratic column, but would not have the South-sweeping potential that I believe Edwards would have. So it looks like Kerry for President, and I would advise him to select Edwards for his running mate to shoot for taking both Carolinas and maybe several other southern states as well. And I wish Kerry the best of luck in defeating Bush this autumn.
2004/02/08
This is it: the Virginia Primary
Now the finest hour for Virginians has arrived: a chance to make their votes count towards electing the next President of the United States. The Virginia Primaries will be held this Tuesday, with the Democratic Primary being of the most interest. Already the candidates have taken interest in us. The Dean and Kerry campaigns phoned me, someone working on the Clark campaign wants me to vote for Clark, and I have seen ads on TV here for Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. Further, there was a dinner here (the Jefferson Jackson dinner) at which four of the candidates attended.
So how do I stand on them now? First of all, my vote will not go for Kerry in the primaries. Kerry does not need my vote; he is hitting the heights at nearly every election and caucus that is held. I still wonder how he can go from single digits to half the electorate in a single bound. Further, he threw a computer call on my telephone. That did not sit well with me; I don't want anyone calling me by computer. If someone calls me, and I talk to them, and they keep on talking as if they never heard me, I hang up. But they did give a number to call, and someone answered right away. I complained about the computer call, and then it turned into a discussion on Kerry's candidacy. That turned things around for them as far as the computer call, because a human answered and was willing to talk to me, but I still am not going to vote for him. He did make one good statement today, when he said that Bush was telling stories on why the US sent troops to Iraq.
To me, Dean has been wronged by the media. They tore him apart, message by message, turning each into a gaffe, including the cheerleading speech at the end of the Iowa caucuses. I don't know how to contend with the hypermedia, for taking action against them could rob us of our freedom of speech and of the press. But still, I hear the Bush camp wanting Dean to be nominated. That is good enough reason for not voting for Dean. We need to send Bush back to Texas.
Kucinich did unusually well in Washington State, 8%, but he is not going to get out of single digits, and neither is Sharpton. Gephardt and Braun dropped out of the race, and I am certainly not going to vote for that extremist perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
That leaves Edwards and Clark. I am going to vote for one of these two, although I feel like I may be voting for who I want for Vice President. It could be Clark, because of his appeal to Southern voters and to those who served in the military, two important pro-Bush groups. But Edwards has the same appeal, and he may have one other thing, namely charisma. According to the Lichtman keys theory, the only way the opposition party can influence the election is by nominating someone with charisma or a national hero. Edwards could be charismatic; he reminds me vaguely of JFK and he has conducted an upbeat campaign. For that reason I will probably vote for Edwards. And I hope the candidates don't ignore Virginia once the primary is over!
Now the finest hour for Virginians has arrived: a chance to make their votes count towards electing the next President of the United States. The Virginia Primaries will be held this Tuesday, with the Democratic Primary being of the most interest. Already the candidates have taken interest in us. The Dean and Kerry campaigns phoned me, someone working on the Clark campaign wants me to vote for Clark, and I have seen ads on TV here for Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. Further, there was a dinner here (the Jefferson Jackson dinner) at which four of the candidates attended.
So how do I stand on them now? First of all, my vote will not go for Kerry in the primaries. Kerry does not need my vote; he is hitting the heights at nearly every election and caucus that is held. I still wonder how he can go from single digits to half the electorate in a single bound. Further, he threw a computer call on my telephone. That did not sit well with me; I don't want anyone calling me by computer. If someone calls me, and I talk to them, and they keep on talking as if they never heard me, I hang up. But they did give a number to call, and someone answered right away. I complained about the computer call, and then it turned into a discussion on Kerry's candidacy. That turned things around for them as far as the computer call, because a human answered and was willing to talk to me, but I still am not going to vote for him. He did make one good statement today, when he said that Bush was telling stories on why the US sent troops to Iraq.
To me, Dean has been wronged by the media. They tore him apart, message by message, turning each into a gaffe, including the cheerleading speech at the end of the Iowa caucuses. I don't know how to contend with the hypermedia, for taking action against them could rob us of our freedom of speech and of the press. But still, I hear the Bush camp wanting Dean to be nominated. That is good enough reason for not voting for Dean. We need to send Bush back to Texas.
Kucinich did unusually well in Washington State, 8%, but he is not going to get out of single digits, and neither is Sharpton. Gephardt and Braun dropped out of the race, and I am certainly not going to vote for that extremist perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
That leaves Edwards and Clark. I am going to vote for one of these two, although I feel like I may be voting for who I want for Vice President. It could be Clark, because of his appeal to Southern voters and to those who served in the military, two important pro-Bush groups. But Edwards has the same appeal, and he may have one other thing, namely charisma. According to the Lichtman keys theory, the only way the opposition party can influence the election is by nominating someone with charisma or a national hero. Edwards could be charismatic; he reminds me vaguely of JFK and he has conducted an upbeat campaign. For that reason I will probably vote for Edwards. And I hope the candidates don't ignore Virginia once the primary is over!
This is it: the Virginia Primary
Now the finest hour for Virginians has arrived: a chance to make their votes count towards electing the next President of the United States. The Virginia Primaries will be held this Tuesday, with the Democratic Primary being of the most interest. Already the candidates have taken interest in us. The Dean and Kerry campaigns phoned me, someone working on the Clark campaign wants me to vote for Clark, and I have seen ads on TV here for Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. Further, there was a dinner here (the Jefferson Jackson dinner) at which four of the candidates attended.
So how do I stand on them now? First of all, my vote will not go for Kerry in the primaries. Kerry does not need my vote; he is hitting the heights at nearly every election and caucus that is held. I still wonder how he can go from single digits to half the electorate in a single bound. Further, he threw a computer call on my telephone. That did not sit well with me; I don't want anyone calling me by computer. If someone calls me, and I talk to them, and they keep on talking as if they never heard me, I hang up. But they did give a number to call, and someone answered right away. I complained about the computer call, and then it turned into a discussion on Kerry's candidacy. That turned things around for them as far as the computer call, because a human answered and was willing to talk to me, but I still am not going to vote for him. He did make one good statement today, when he said that Bush was telling stories on why the US sent troops to Iraq.
To me, Dean has been wronged by the media. They tore him apart, message by message, turning each into a gaffe, including the cheerleading speech at the end of the Iowa caucuses. I don't know how to contend with the hypermedia, for taking action against them could rob us of our freedom of speech and of the press. But still, I hear the Bush camp wanting Dean to be nominated. That is good enough reason for not voting for Dean. We need to send Bush back to Texas.
Kucinich did unusually well in Washington State, 8%, but he is not going to get out of single digits, and neither is Sharpton. Gephardt and Braun dropped out of the race, and I am certainly not going to vote for that extremist perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
That leaves Edwards and Clark. I am going to vote for one of these two, although I feel like I may be voting for who I want for Vice President. It could be Clark, because of his appeal to Southern voters and to those who served in the military, two important pro-Bush groups. But Edwards has the same appeal, and he may have one other thing, namely charisma. According to the Lichtman keys theory, the only way the opposition party can influence the election is by nominating someone with charisma or a national hero. Edwards could be charismatic; he reminds me vaguely of JFK and he has conducted an upbeat campaign. For that reason I will probably vote for Edwards.
Now the finest hour for Virginians has arrived: a chance to make their votes count towards electing the next President of the United States. The Virginia Primaries will be held this Tuesday, with the Democratic Primary being of the most interest. Already the candidates have taken interest in us. The Dean and Kerry campaigns phoned me, someone working on the Clark campaign wants me to vote for Clark, and I have seen ads on TV here for Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. Further, there was a dinner here (the Jefferson Jackson dinner) at which four of the candidates attended.
So how do I stand on them now? First of all, my vote will not go for Kerry in the primaries. Kerry does not need my vote; he is hitting the heights at nearly every election and caucus that is held. I still wonder how he can go from single digits to half the electorate in a single bound. Further, he threw a computer call on my telephone. That did not sit well with me; I don't want anyone calling me by computer. If someone calls me, and I talk to them, and they keep on talking as if they never heard me, I hang up. But they did give a number to call, and someone answered right away. I complained about the computer call, and then it turned into a discussion on Kerry's candidacy. That turned things around for them as far as the computer call, because a human answered and was willing to talk to me, but I still am not going to vote for him. He did make one good statement today, when he said that Bush was telling stories on why the US sent troops to Iraq.
To me, Dean has been wronged by the media. They tore him apart, message by message, turning each into a gaffe, including the cheerleading speech at the end of the Iowa caucuses. I don't know how to contend with the hypermedia, for taking action against them could rob us of our freedom of speech and of the press. But still, I hear the Bush camp wanting Dean to be nominated. That is good enough reason for not voting for Dean. We need to send Bush back to Texas.
Kucinich did unusually well in Washington State, 8%, but he is not going to get out of single digits, and neither is Sharpton. Gephardt and Braun dropped out of the race, and I am certainly not going to vote for that extremist perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
That leaves Edwards and Clark. I am going to vote for one of these two, although I feel like I may be voting for who I want for Vice President. It could be Clark, because of his appeal to Southern voters and to those who served in the military, two important pro-Bush groups. But Edwards has the same appeal, and he may have one other thing, namely charisma. According to the Lichtman keys theory, the only way the opposition party can influence the election is by nominating someone with charisma or a national hero. Edwards could be charismatic; he reminds me vaguely of JFK and he has conducted an upbeat campaign. For that reason I will probably vote for Edwards.
Words that won't stop
When I hear some words, I want to hear the word go on and on. Some words are built for this. For example, in a radio ad in the 1960s, I heard them sing "Wearever aluminuminuminum". The word is aluminum. But the word is rhythmical with its two m's, and it makes me feel like the inuming should go on and on forever: aluminuminuminuminum….
Just recently I found a web page with a list of such words. namely Words where it is not clear where to stop. This site has other good entries, such as theseses, possessessesses, banananana, and alfalfalfalfa. The funniest ones I think are those with n's and m's in it, such as aluminuminum and phenomenomenomen. I especially like millenniummunnumunum, with its indecision between single and double m's and n's, its making a repetition where there wasn't one, and its looks when typed out in a word processor or when it is handwritten. Both look like a big blur; the handwritten version looks like someone scribbled across the page.
To these I can add some of my own:
Alabamalabamalabama (so both Southern states go on forever)
institutitutitutitutitutitution
abilibilibilibilibility (do you have the abilibility to create these nonstop words?)
abilitilitilitilitility
Mississippississippississippississippi (flows freer than with all s's)
Tennessennessennessee
murdererererererererer
deaded
The last two appeared in an old Carol Burnett show where someone on a rowboat that she is on gets thrown overboard by someone else, and Carol said, "You murdererererer! Now he's deaded." These nonstop words remind me of periodic decimals in arithmetic, such as 3/11 = 0.2727272727… The hallmark of a rational number is that it repeats the same thing forever. So these words that I am talking about are "rational" words. Actually, terminating decimals such as 2/5 = 0.4 are repeaters to, of zeroes: 2/5 = 0.4000000…; in the same way any word can be thought of as repeating blanks on the end. I'll stop right here, but the words in this blog can go on forever.
When I hear some words, I want to hear the word go on and on. Some words are built for this. For example, in a radio ad in the 1960s, I heard them sing "Wearever aluminuminuminum". The word is aluminum. But the word is rhythmical with its two m's, and it makes me feel like the inuming should go on and on forever: aluminuminuminuminum….
Just recently I found a web page with a list of such words. namely Words where it is not clear where to stop. This site has other good entries, such as theseses, possessessesses, banananana, and alfalfalfalfa. The funniest ones I think are those with n's and m's in it, such as aluminuminum and phenomenomenomen. I especially like millenniummunnumunum, with its indecision between single and double m's and n's, its making a repetition where there wasn't one, and its looks when typed out in a word processor or when it is handwritten. Both look like a big blur; the handwritten version looks like someone scribbled across the page.
To these I can add some of my own:
Alabamalabamalabama (so both Southern states go on forever)
institutitutitutitutitutitution
abilibilibilibilibility (do you have the abilibility to create these nonstop words?)
abilitilitilitilitility
Mississippississippississippississippi (flows freer than with all s's)
Tennessennessennessee
murdererererererererer
deaded
The last two appeared in an old Carol Burnett show where someone on a rowboat that she is on gets thrown overboard by someone else, and Carol said, "You murdererererer! Now he's deaded." These nonstop words remind me of periodic decimals in arithmetic, such as 3/11 = 0.2727272727… The hallmark of a rational number is that it repeats the same thing forever. So these words that I am talking about are "rational" words. Actually, terminating decimals such as 2/5 = 0.4 are repeaters to, of zeroes: 2/5 = 0.4000000…; in the same way any word can be thought of as repeating blanks on the end. I'll stop right here, but the words in this blog can go on forever.
2004/02/03
The Day La Bamba Died
Today is 2004 February 3, the forty-fifth anniversary of the day that La Bamba died. Some would say that it is the day that music died, but music continues to be played all over the place. In fact, La Bamba has been played many times. It is the favorite song of the summer camp I go to, SUUSI, where it used to be that every night right at midnight, the DJ at the Serendipity dance hall would play it, and we would all dance free-form and in conga lines. I have not heard much La Bamba at SUUSI recently; maybe it did die. But I had heard it many times in the 1990s.
No what I am talking about is an event that took the life of the author of La Bamba, Ritchie Valens. He along with Buddy Holly and two other people died on 1959 February 3 in a plane crash. As I heard the story, the band was going from Iowa to a place in North Dakota. They were traveling by bus, but it was a cold night, and the bus' heating system was not working. So they stopped at an airport and arranged to get a plane to fly them north. Four people were on the plane including the pilot, Buddy Holly, and Ritchie Valens. The plane took off and five minutes later it crashed into a field. There were instrument flight rules (IFR) at the time, and perhaps the pilot did not have the proper training in flying with IFR.
The moment has been celebrated as an event which killed off a lot of music that could have been written and played. It was the subject of many essays and tributes, including American Pie, a tune part of whose lyrics ran, "singing this will be the day that I die; This will be the day that I die." But before that time, Ritchie Valens, a Hispanic who bought much Mexican music into the mainstream, had written La Bamba, and it has been performed frequently since. It is fortunate that it did, because when I hear "Baile baile baile La Bamba" and "un poca de gracia", I know it is time to get out into the dance floor and grab onto some conga line. So even though it may have been the day that music or La Bamba died, the tragic event of 1959 February 3 did not prevent me from enjoying the music of those who died that day. May their music be played forever more…
Today is 2004 February 3, the forty-fifth anniversary of the day that La Bamba died. Some would say that it is the day that music died, but music continues to be played all over the place. In fact, La Bamba has been played many times. It is the favorite song of the summer camp I go to, SUUSI, where it used to be that every night right at midnight, the DJ at the Serendipity dance hall would play it, and we would all dance free-form and in conga lines. I have not heard much La Bamba at SUUSI recently; maybe it did die. But I had heard it many times in the 1990s.
No what I am talking about is an event that took the life of the author of La Bamba, Ritchie Valens. He along with Buddy Holly and two other people died on 1959 February 3 in a plane crash. As I heard the story, the band was going from Iowa to a place in North Dakota. They were traveling by bus, but it was a cold night, and the bus' heating system was not working. So they stopped at an airport and arranged to get a plane to fly them north. Four people were on the plane including the pilot, Buddy Holly, and Ritchie Valens. The plane took off and five minutes later it crashed into a field. There were instrument flight rules (IFR) at the time, and perhaps the pilot did not have the proper training in flying with IFR.
The moment has been celebrated as an event which killed off a lot of music that could have been written and played. It was the subject of many essays and tributes, including American Pie, a tune part of whose lyrics ran, "singing this will be the day that I die; This will be the day that I die." But before that time, Ritchie Valens, a Hispanic who bought much Mexican music into the mainstream, had written La Bamba, and it has been performed frequently since. It is fortunate that it did, because when I hear "Baile baile baile La Bamba" and "un poca de gracia", I know it is time to get out into the dance floor and grab onto some conga line. So even though it may have been the day that music or La Bamba died, the tragic event of 1959 February 3 did not prevent me from enjoying the music of those who died that day. May their music be played forever more…
Super Tuesday
It is now 2004 February 3 21:54. The primary results are mostly in. Not all of them are in, but enough are in to make some conclusions. First the results:
Delaware: Kerry easily, half the vote, with Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman (second) around 10% each.
South Carolina: Edwards; what is surprising is the margin by which he took the state. Polls had him only slightly ahead; he won by about 15% instead.
Oklahoma: Edwards or Clark. I thought Clark would win this one, but Edwards is essentially tied with him, with Kerry a little ways back. Edwards has the lead as I type this.
Arizona: Kerry. CNN projected him the winner even though a grand total of 0 votes have been counted.
Missouri: Kerry easily, with Edwards a strong second.
New Mexico: No results in as of yet.
So what does this mean? I think Edwards is going to get it. Here is my review of the candidates' status:
Graham: Ran out of money last year and quit.
Braun: Quit in January after seeing that she was not going to win much.
Gephardt: Quit after finishing a dismal fifth in the Iowa caucuses.
Lieberman: Finished poorly tonight, including Delaware where he was expected to be strong. Just now I got word that he is withdrawing from the race.
Kucinich: He may or may not quit; can keep up as long as the money is there. But it won't make a difference because he is only picking up low single digits.
Sharpton: Strong showing in South Carolina, so may continue; otherwise in the same situation as Kucinich; won't matter.
Dean: Didn't win anything! He is doing poorly in all of the contests I have seen, at 6% in South Carolina, well behind Sharpton. I think he is going to quit soon.
Clark: Doing the best he can in Oklahoma, but is not winning anything. He may hang in a while but I expect that he may throw in the towel soon.
Kerry: Doing well everywhere, except maybe South Carolina. He is the leading contender and may remain that way for a while. But…
Edwards: Clearly has the momentum. He did much better than expected in Oklahoma and South Carolina and is doing well everywhere else. He is still behind Kerry, but this guy is on a roll, and he may be charismatic besides.
That is why I think Edwards is going to win the nomination; he will probably pick Clark or maybe Kerry as his running mate.
How well will he do against Bush? I think he is going to lose, as it stands now. Bush has the keys; he has lost four of the Lichtman keys but is apparently holding on to the others. For Edwards to defeat Bush, two more keys will have to topple, with one being the short-term economy, which I believe will be measured by the number of jobs available. The other would have to be something like Third Party, Scandal, or Social Unrest. It is conceivable that Edwards will get the electoral victory and Bush the popular, reversing the 2000 debacle and returning the favor.
But why did he do so well tonight? And why has Kerry emerged all at once as the leader? I believe there is one primary factor that will determine who will get the nomination from what I have seen so far: ability to defeat Bush. Kerry now leads him a whopping 7%, and Edwards by 1%. All the other candidates trail Bush. If you beat Bush in a poll, you will do well in the primaries.
It is now 2004 February 3 21:54. The primary results are mostly in. Not all of them are in, but enough are in to make some conclusions. First the results:
Delaware: Kerry easily, half the vote, with Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman (second) around 10% each.
South Carolina: Edwards; what is surprising is the margin by which he took the state. Polls had him only slightly ahead; he won by about 15% instead.
Oklahoma: Edwards or Clark. I thought Clark would win this one, but Edwards is essentially tied with him, with Kerry a little ways back. Edwards has the lead as I type this.
Arizona: Kerry. CNN projected him the winner even though a grand total of 0 votes have been counted.
Missouri: Kerry easily, with Edwards a strong second.
New Mexico: No results in as of yet.
So what does this mean? I think Edwards is going to get it. Here is my review of the candidates' status:
Graham: Ran out of money last year and quit.
Braun: Quit in January after seeing that she was not going to win much.
Gephardt: Quit after finishing a dismal fifth in the Iowa caucuses.
Lieberman: Finished poorly tonight, including Delaware where he was expected to be strong. Just now I got word that he is withdrawing from the race.
Kucinich: He may or may not quit; can keep up as long as the money is there. But it won't make a difference because he is only picking up low single digits.
Sharpton: Strong showing in South Carolina, so may continue; otherwise in the same situation as Kucinich; won't matter.
Dean: Didn't win anything! He is doing poorly in all of the contests I have seen, at 6% in South Carolina, well behind Sharpton. I think he is going to quit soon.
Clark: Doing the best he can in Oklahoma, but is not winning anything. He may hang in a while but I expect that he may throw in the towel soon.
Kerry: Doing well everywhere, except maybe South Carolina. He is the leading contender and may remain that way for a while. But…
Edwards: Clearly has the momentum. He did much better than expected in Oklahoma and South Carolina and is doing well everywhere else. He is still behind Kerry, but this guy is on a roll, and he may be charismatic besides.
That is why I think Edwards is going to win the nomination; he will probably pick Clark or maybe Kerry as his running mate.
How well will he do against Bush? I think he is going to lose, as it stands now. Bush has the keys; he has lost four of the Lichtman keys but is apparently holding on to the others. For Edwards to defeat Bush, two more keys will have to topple, with one being the short-term economy, which I believe will be measured by the number of jobs available. The other would have to be something like Third Party, Scandal, or Social Unrest. It is conceivable that Edwards will get the electoral victory and Bush the popular, reversing the 2000 debacle and returning the favor.
But why did he do so well tonight? And why has Kerry emerged all at once as the leader? I believe there is one primary factor that will determine who will get the nomination from what I have seen so far: ability to defeat Bush. Kerry now leads him a whopping 7%, and Edwards by 1%. All the other candidates trail Bush. If you beat Bush in a poll, you will do well in the primaries.
The Super Breast Exposure
The Super Bowl was held. Strict security may have deterred anyone from thinking about a terrorist attack. The Patriots won 32-29. But that was not the big thing that happened there. The action was at the halftime show, wherein Justin Timberlake in an act removed part of Janet Jackson's dress, exposing her right breast. People have gone gaga about this event. The media have hammered on it over and over again to the point where that two minutes of act may be the most replayed two minutes in history. And why?
Because a breast was exposed, that's why. People are objecting all over the place that this should not be shown to children on prime-time TV, let alone the Super Bowl. The FCC is investigating and could penalize MTV and CBS. Both networks apologized, as did Janet Jackson who said it was unintentional. People call the incident names, calling it such names as inappropriate, lewd, and classless, and using the verb be in doing so.
I don't think it was. She said it was unintentional, so therefore it was. It is just as with politicians earlier, which led me to develop false syllogisms, where you start by assuming the hypotheses are false. But what was she after with the exposure? The Greenback, that's what. I think she is going to get a heap of money out of this act, because of all the attention applied to it.
All because we have a fixation on the female breast. We want women to hide their breasts from others in public, even though many cultures do not have this fixation and think as much of a woman going topless as a man going shirtless. It even goes so far as laws are needed to protect women who want to nurse their babies in a public area. So I don't think Janet's breast exposure was immoral, classless, or anything like that. It was just ordinary, and I think people should stop castigating it. However, for the same reason, I don't think Janet should get one red cent out of exposing her breast. I expose mine when I run shirtless in the summer when it's hot. I wish I would get a hundred bucks every time I do that. Stop dwelling on breasts and get a life, please.
The Super Bowl was held. Strict security may have deterred anyone from thinking about a terrorist attack. The Patriots won 32-29. But that was not the big thing that happened there. The action was at the halftime show, wherein Justin Timberlake in an act removed part of Janet Jackson's dress, exposing her right breast. People have gone gaga about this event. The media have hammered on it over and over again to the point where that two minutes of act may be the most replayed two minutes in history. And why?
Because a breast was exposed, that's why. People are objecting all over the place that this should not be shown to children on prime-time TV, let alone the Super Bowl. The FCC is investigating and could penalize MTV and CBS. Both networks apologized, as did Janet Jackson who said it was unintentional. People call the incident names, calling it such names as inappropriate, lewd, and classless, and using the verb be in doing so.
I don't think it was. She said it was unintentional, so therefore it was. It is just as with politicians earlier, which led me to develop false syllogisms, where you start by assuming the hypotheses are false. But what was she after with the exposure? The Greenback, that's what. I think she is going to get a heap of money out of this act, because of all the attention applied to it.
All because we have a fixation on the female breast. We want women to hide their breasts from others in public, even though many cultures do not have this fixation and think as much of a woman going topless as a man going shirtless. It even goes so far as laws are needed to protect women who want to nurse their babies in a public area. So I don't think Janet's breast exposure was immoral, classless, or anything like that. It was just ordinary, and I think people should stop castigating it. However, for the same reason, I don't think Janet should get one red cent out of exposing her breast. I expose mine when I run shirtless in the summer when it's hot. I wish I would get a hundred bucks every time I do that. Stop dwelling on breasts and get a life, please.
2004/02/01
Presidential Primaries
These are getting interesting now. Especially interesting is an article I found in Common Dreams which says that not only did Kerry win the New Hampshire Democratic primary, but he also received 3,009, or 5%, of the vote in the Republican primary, finishing ahead of all Republicans in that primary except George W. Bush. This article says this could mean trouble for Bush later on. Already, in a poll, Kerry outpolls Bush by 49-46%.
Here is how I rank them now:
1. John Edwards. He seems like the candidate that I would vote for now. He is from the South, so would have a chance at taking Southern states, especially the Carolinas. He is a defense lawyer, and so would know the plight of people not as fortunate as most of us; in particular, those in trouble with the law for innocuous reasons such as smoking the wrong stuff. He knows how to cheer crowds on, and he also has some sensible ideas. So I rank him first.
2. John Kerry. That poll saying that he would beat Bush 49-46% says it all. We need to send Bush back to Texas, and the Democrat who can do it best is who I will vote for. The question is whether this popularity of Kerry, who was once in single digits, will hold out. A reasonable ticket would be Kerry-Edwards.
3. Howard Dean. Another look needs to be taken at this candidate. The media overplayed his "scream" talk rather big. A recording from elsewhere in the auditorium showed Dean getting fainter as time progressed, and that last "Yeeaaahhh!!" was completely inaudible. I say that if you are going to turn away from Dean simply because of "Yeeaaahhh!!", then you better not say that at sports events, especially the Super Bowl. Still, the Republicans hope he gets the nomination; we need someone the GOP does not want.
4. Wesley Clark. Too much of a deal was made of the Michael Moore article that called Bush a deserter. It is exactly as Clark says, that everyone has a right to his own opinion. However, he is doing badly in the polls; he should have campaigned in Iowa. We need someone who can win.
5. Dennis Kucinich. He has some dramatically good views on things, in my opinion, on gay marriage, on the Iraq war (end it now), and his proposal for a Department of Peace. Still, we need someone who can get votes to get a Democrat in the White House, and Kucinich may not be able to do it.
6. Al Sharpton. A witty person who has shown up on Jay Leno. He may be a bit too aggressive for the nomination, and he is way behind. Sooner or later, though, we may get a chance to vote for a black for President.
7. Joe Lieberman. His cool manner appeals to me a lot; however, his views tend too much to the right. He approved the Iraq war and still does, and is even against civil unions. He appears to be midway between the other Democrats and George Bush.
This ranking differs substantially from other ratings that I have made, suggesting that I still have not made up my mind. I am one of the undecideds, and the Democratic candidates need to show to me that they are the one I should select to challenge Bush in November.
These are getting interesting now. Especially interesting is an article I found in Common Dreams which says that not only did Kerry win the New Hampshire Democratic primary, but he also received 3,009, or 5%, of the vote in the Republican primary, finishing ahead of all Republicans in that primary except George W. Bush. This article says this could mean trouble for Bush later on. Already, in a poll, Kerry outpolls Bush by 49-46%.
Here is how I rank them now:
1. John Edwards. He seems like the candidate that I would vote for now. He is from the South, so would have a chance at taking Southern states, especially the Carolinas. He is a defense lawyer, and so would know the plight of people not as fortunate as most of us; in particular, those in trouble with the law for innocuous reasons such as smoking the wrong stuff. He knows how to cheer crowds on, and he also has some sensible ideas. So I rank him first.
2. John Kerry. That poll saying that he would beat Bush 49-46% says it all. We need to send Bush back to Texas, and the Democrat who can do it best is who I will vote for. The question is whether this popularity of Kerry, who was once in single digits, will hold out. A reasonable ticket would be Kerry-Edwards.
3. Howard Dean. Another look needs to be taken at this candidate. The media overplayed his "scream" talk rather big. A recording from elsewhere in the auditorium showed Dean getting fainter as time progressed, and that last "Yeeaaahhh!!" was completely inaudible. I say that if you are going to turn away from Dean simply because of "Yeeaaahhh!!", then you better not say that at sports events, especially the Super Bowl. Still, the Republicans hope he gets the nomination; we need someone the GOP does not want.
4. Wesley Clark. Too much of a deal was made of the Michael Moore article that called Bush a deserter. It is exactly as Clark says, that everyone has a right to his own opinion. However, he is doing badly in the polls; he should have campaigned in Iowa. We need someone who can win.
5. Dennis Kucinich. He has some dramatically good views on things, in my opinion, on gay marriage, on the Iraq war (end it now), and his proposal for a Department of Peace. Still, we need someone who can get votes to get a Democrat in the White House, and Kucinich may not be able to do it.
6. Al Sharpton. A witty person who has shown up on Jay Leno. He may be a bit too aggressive for the nomination, and he is way behind. Sooner or later, though, we may get a chance to vote for a black for President.
7. Joe Lieberman. His cool manner appeals to me a lot; however, his views tend too much to the right. He approved the Iraq war and still does, and is even against civil unions. He appears to be midway between the other Democrats and George Bush.
This ranking differs substantially from other ratings that I have made, suggesting that I still have not made up my mind. I am one of the undecideds, and the Democratic candidates need to show to me that they are the one I should select to challenge Bush in November.
2004/01/23
Clarabell is dead
Today I heard that Bob Keeshan is dead at 76 years of age. This is the first time I have heard of the name. I recognize him more from the childhood names I knew him as, namely Clarabell and Captain Kangaroo. He was one of my favorite childhood actors, although as a child I always knew him as Clarabell or Captain Kangaroo. I could never find the real name of this person.
I knew him primarily as Clarabell, when I watched Howdy Doody during the early 1950s when I was an early grade school child. I liked Clarabell's silliness. He would squirt seltzer water on everybody. He had a box on his front and a horn, and he would honk the horn a lot. He never uttered a word, but made motions instead. Whenever Buffalo Bob had a table full of bells and he would ring the bells in turn to play a tune, Clarabell would ruin it by getting out a cowbell and either putting the cowbell amongst the intended bells, or simply ringing the cowbell. It would sound out of timbre and out of pitch both with the other bells and it would sound silly. Buffalo Bob would always say, "Do!!!" (rhymes with "go") after these episodes. Tonight I saw him attempting to get Flub-a-Dub to shut up by holding his beak shut. In a later episode Buffalo Bob told him to put the goulash in the pot, and instead he put a pair of galoshes into it and ruined the meal. I will always remember Clarabell; I was never quite sure as a child how to spell his name.
In 1955, in addition to playing Clarabell, Bob Keeshan started his own show: Captain Kangaroo. I did not watch this as much; I was 9 at the time and much more interested in Mickey Mouse Club, and in a few years, I was getting too old for these shows. But I do remember some Captain Kangaroo episodes, including those involving my most favorite character on those shows, Bunny Rabbit. In one episode, Bunny Rabbit had a deck of cards and wanted to play a card trick. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. Captain Kangaroo turned it over. Sure enough, it was the 4 of clubs. Bunny Rabbit played the trick again. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. Captain Kangaroo turned it over. Sure enough, it was the 4 of clubs. Bunny Rabbit played the trick again. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. About this Captain Kangaroo got suspicious, and he turned over the entire deck. Every single card in it was a 4 of clubs.
Captain Kangaroo played a part in my life, and also in my son's life in the 1980s. I heard tonight that he entertained three generations of children: Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Captain Kangaroo was similar to Mr. Rogers, but was sillier. What is surprising is that all three generations treasured him. I could see that from Millennials, since he was easy going and was kind to children. But his silly wit was similar to the shows presented to Generation X (e.g., Sesame Street), and he appealed to Baby Boomers as well, as he was similar to Clarabell, who he also played. His was a universal children's program. I suppose he would have appealed to Silents or to the generation that is coming up in a year or two.
It is said to hear that Clarabell and Captain Kangaroo are dead.
Today I heard that Bob Keeshan is dead at 76 years of age. This is the first time I have heard of the name. I recognize him more from the childhood names I knew him as, namely Clarabell and Captain Kangaroo. He was one of my favorite childhood actors, although as a child I always knew him as Clarabell or Captain Kangaroo. I could never find the real name of this person.
I knew him primarily as Clarabell, when I watched Howdy Doody during the early 1950s when I was an early grade school child. I liked Clarabell's silliness. He would squirt seltzer water on everybody. He had a box on his front and a horn, and he would honk the horn a lot. He never uttered a word, but made motions instead. Whenever Buffalo Bob had a table full of bells and he would ring the bells in turn to play a tune, Clarabell would ruin it by getting out a cowbell and either putting the cowbell amongst the intended bells, or simply ringing the cowbell. It would sound out of timbre and out of pitch both with the other bells and it would sound silly. Buffalo Bob would always say, "Do!!!" (rhymes with "go") after these episodes. Tonight I saw him attempting to get Flub-a-Dub to shut up by holding his beak shut. In a later episode Buffalo Bob told him to put the goulash in the pot, and instead he put a pair of galoshes into it and ruined the meal. I will always remember Clarabell; I was never quite sure as a child how to spell his name.
In 1955, in addition to playing Clarabell, Bob Keeshan started his own show: Captain Kangaroo. I did not watch this as much; I was 9 at the time and much more interested in Mickey Mouse Club, and in a few years, I was getting too old for these shows. But I do remember some Captain Kangaroo episodes, including those involving my most favorite character on those shows, Bunny Rabbit. In one episode, Bunny Rabbit had a deck of cards and wanted to play a card trick. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. Captain Kangaroo turned it over. Sure enough, it was the 4 of clubs. Bunny Rabbit played the trick again. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. Captain Kangaroo turned it over. Sure enough, it was the 4 of clubs. Bunny Rabbit played the trick again. He showed Captain Kangaroo the deck fanned-out face down and asked Captain Kangaroo to select a card. He did and put it face down on the table. Bunny Rabbit said it was the 4 of clubs. About this Captain Kangaroo got suspicious, and he turned over the entire deck. Every single card in it was a 4 of clubs.
Captain Kangaroo played a part in my life, and also in my son's life in the 1980s. I heard tonight that he entertained three generations of children: Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Captain Kangaroo was similar to Mr. Rogers, but was sillier. What is surprising is that all three generations treasured him. I could see that from Millennials, since he was easy going and was kind to children. But his silly wit was similar to the shows presented to Generation X (e.g., Sesame Street), and he appealed to Baby Boomers as well, as he was similar to Clarabell, who he also played. His was a universal children's program. I suppose he would have appealed to Silents or to the generation that is coming up in a year or two.
It is said to hear that Clarabell and Captain Kangaroo are dead.
2004/01/21
Students for Academic Freedom
A group at the University of Colorado, Students for Academic Freedom, have opened up a web site to gather complaints about "left-leaning" professors. They say these professors tell only half the story, discriminate against conservative students, and try to indoctrinate students. Fair enough. I hope they are just as zealous about going after right-leaning professors, including those that tell only half the story, discriminate against liberal and libertarian students and try to indoctrinate students. Else they can complain about themselves.
A group at the University of Colorado, Students for Academic Freedom, have opened up a web site to gather complaints about "left-leaning" professors. They say these professors tell only half the story, discriminate against conservative students, and try to indoctrinate students. Fair enough. I hope they are just as zealous about going after right-leaning professors, including those that tell only half the story, discriminate against liberal and libertarian students and try to indoctrinate students. Else they can complain about themselves.
Candidate Friendliness
Why did Kerry win in Iowa? I think it was because he was friendly. Some other candidates don't seem to have the warm connection with voters that Kerry has, for example, Wesley Clark. This is going to hurt him against Bush. Bush has an optimistic message in his State of the Union address, while Clark seems to be as stern as, well, a military general. How friendly are the others? I rank the candidates this way on friendliness:
1. John Kerry
2. John Edwards
3. Joe Lieberman
4. Dennis Kucinich
5. Howard Dean
6. Wesley Clark
7. Al Sharpton
Clark is second last. However, I don't think Kerry can carry the day any better, as he seems to be associated with losers like Dukakis. It looks like Edwards might be my choice, but he looks like someone made him out of a Presidential Candidate Kit. He needs to show some realness in his approach.
Whoever the Democrats nominate, he has to look and speak optimistically or Bush is going to have that much more in his advantage in November.
Oh, by the way, what did you think of the Dean Scream on Monday night? He made the crowd go wild, but would that work in the Oval Office? I now rank Clark as my favorite with Edwards a close second because of Dean's fit.
Why did Kerry win in Iowa? I think it was because he was friendly. Some other candidates don't seem to have the warm connection with voters that Kerry has, for example, Wesley Clark. This is going to hurt him against Bush. Bush has an optimistic message in his State of the Union address, while Clark seems to be as stern as, well, a military general. How friendly are the others? I rank the candidates this way on friendliness:
1. John Kerry
2. John Edwards
3. Joe Lieberman
4. Dennis Kucinich
5. Howard Dean
6. Wesley Clark
7. Al Sharpton
Clark is second last. However, I don't think Kerry can carry the day any better, as he seems to be associated with losers like Dukakis. It looks like Edwards might be my choice, but he looks like someone made him out of a Presidential Candidate Kit. He needs to show some realness in his approach.
Whoever the Democrats nominate, he has to look and speak optimistically or Bush is going to have that much more in his advantage in November.
Oh, by the way, what did you think of the Dean Scream on Monday night? He made the crowd go wild, but would that work in the Oval Office? I now rank Clark as my favorite with Edwards a close second because of Dean's fit.
Now it's Steve Martin
Last month I complained to Virginia Delegate Kirk Cox because he threw a computer-recorded survey call on my telephone. Despite my complaint, he did it again. After that he stopped, until tonight, when I got yet another survey call. I was about ready to have it with Del. Cox until I found out that this time the culprit is Senator Steve Martin. He called me on the same number (703-488-9800) tonight with a survey call. So if you see this number on your Caller ID, don't answer it.
I emailed him back saying that I did not appreciate his call and to stop sending them to me. As long as these legislatures (and so far they are all Republican) are going to do this, I am going to have to regard them as little better than the common street telemarketer.
Last month I complained to Virginia Delegate Kirk Cox because he threw a computer-recorded survey call on my telephone. Despite my complaint, he did it again. After that he stopped, until tonight, when I got yet another survey call. I was about ready to have it with Del. Cox until I found out that this time the culprit is Senator Steve Martin. He called me on the same number (703-488-9800) tonight with a survey call. So if you see this number on your Caller ID, don't answer it.
I emailed him back saying that I did not appreciate his call and to stop sending them to me. As long as these legislatures (and so far they are all Republican) are going to do this, I am going to have to regard them as little better than the common street telemarketer.
2004/01/19
Microsoft: The Big Bully
There have been several takeoffs on Microsoft's name. For example, Apple Computer in the late 1970s named its software "AppleSoft", in a pun on "applesauce", but also on "Microsoft". The name sounds like "My crow's soft.", which sound like someone can't get it up, but with the species of bird specified. I haven't seen many cracks like this lately. And certainly things like this should not affect the multi-billion-dollar giant. But today apparently it had.
A story came out today that a 17-year-old Vancouver, British Columbia, high school student named Mike Rowe established a website for himself called www.MikeRoweSoft.com. So now Microsoft has stooped down to suing the youngster and getting him to abandon the name. Perhaps if bully Microsoft would be more polite, it could get Mr. Rowe to put a plug for Microsoft on his site, but not now. Microsoft, long known for playing games with its software, now is playing games with its own name.
There have been several takeoffs on Microsoft's name. For example, Apple Computer in the late 1970s named its software "AppleSoft", in a pun on "applesauce", but also on "Microsoft". The name sounds like "My crow's soft.", which sound like someone can't get it up, but with the species of bird specified. I haven't seen many cracks like this lately. And certainly things like this should not affect the multi-billion-dollar giant. But today apparently it had.
A story came out today that a 17-year-old Vancouver, British Columbia, high school student named Mike Rowe established a website for himself called www.MikeRoweSoft.com. So now Microsoft has stooped down to suing the youngster and getting him to abandon the name. Perhaps if bully Microsoft would be more polite, it could get Mr. Rowe to put a plug for Microsoft on his site, but not now. Microsoft, long known for playing games with its software, now is playing games with its own name.
Iowa Caucuses: How I rate them today
I got an appeal from a friend today urging me to support Wesley Clark for President. He quoted an article from Michael Moore which supported Clark. Most of the statements seem unfounded, but one that sticks out like a sore thumb is this: his background is military, and he is anti-war and pro-environment. That is a rare combination indeed. The only people who I think had the same oxymoronic combination are national heroes like General Dwight Eisenhower or General Ridgeway. These people saw war as something that had to be gotten done and they did not relish it, even though they were actively involved in fighting it. If Clark is like these people, that would be a strong point in his favor. I still favor Dean slightly, but that could change in coming days.
Here is how I rate the Democratic candidates today during the caucuses:
1. Howard Dean
2. Wesley Clark
3. John Edwards
4. Dennis Kucinich (I hear he was pooling votes with Edwards)
5. Dick Gephardt
6. John Kerry
7. Joe Lieberman
8. Al Sharpton
I got an appeal from a friend today urging me to support Wesley Clark for President. He quoted an article from Michael Moore which supported Clark. Most of the statements seem unfounded, but one that sticks out like a sore thumb is this: his background is military, and he is anti-war and pro-environment. That is a rare combination indeed. The only people who I think had the same oxymoronic combination are national heroes like General Dwight Eisenhower or General Ridgeway. These people saw war as something that had to be gotten done and they did not relish it, even though they were actively involved in fighting it. If Clark is like these people, that would be a strong point in his favor. I still favor Dean slightly, but that could change in coming days.
Here is how I rate the Democratic candidates today during the caucuses:
1. Howard Dean
2. Wesley Clark
3. John Edwards
4. Dennis Kucinich (I hear he was pooling votes with Edwards)
5. Dick Gephardt
6. John Kerry
7. Joe Lieberman
8. Al Sharpton
Twilight Zone intro
A little bit of humor for a change:
An ominous voice says, "You are now entering…"
Scene: A city park, where a man is walking, or trying to walk, because he has to dodge the leavings of dogs on the sidewalk throughout the park.
Voice: "…The Twilight Zone…"
[music]: doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo …
The voice corrects itself: "… Correction. The Toilet Zone."
A little bit of humor for a change:
An ominous voice says, "You are now entering…"
Scene: A city park, where a man is walking, or trying to walk, because he has to dodge the leavings of dogs on the sidewalk throughout the park.
Voice: "…The Twilight Zone…"
[music]: doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo …
The voice corrects itself: "… Correction. The Toilet Zone."
Caucuses, Gaffes and Lies
Well today is the big day. The Iowa caucuses meet tonight to decide on Iowa's choices for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States in the 2004 election. It looked like Dr. Howard Dean was going to win easily, but the contest has become close; it is close to a four-way tie.
Today I went to the Fox news site and found two video interviews by Fox news, one of Dean, and one of Iowa Senator Richard Gephardt. Gephardt said the usual stuff that I would expect of a Democratic candidate - doubting what Bush is doing and presenting Democratic agenda. So far, most of the candidates have been like that, making me indifferent between all of them as of late - all of them would be a much better President than Bush is. But when I listened to the Dean video I heard something that makes him stand out from the others.
When asked about the gaffes he has made recently, he said, "A gaffe in Washington is when somebody tells the truth and people in Washington don't think they should have." Interesting. If that's the case, then we want people who commit gaffes to be our next President, because we can trust that President to tell us the truth. In other words, statements made by Washington politicians are either gaffes or lies.
So I looked among the gaffes of Dean on the Internet and found this one from the Concord Monitor: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best … in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." If this is a gaffe, then I want all the Democratic candidates to make gaffes all over the place. Our government is based on the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that this is a universal principle that holds for all defendants, including Osama. To me it is surprising that so many people hold this against Dean, so much that he took a partial retraction of it. Maybe people in this country don't want a democracy and a government of laws. All that Dean was stating was that the job of judging is given to the courts, not to the executive branch or especially the media.
Another one is where he said he wanted the support of men driving pickup trucks with Confederate flags on them. Again, I think this is what he should want. Not only should these men vote for Dean, but they should also replace those Confederate flags with US flags or with Earth flags.
In another one, he said that his brother was a POWMIA when actually he was an anti-war protestor who visited Laos and was never seen again. This is an easy mistake to make: he used an acronym. Acronyms are quite often incomprehensible, and even when they are comprehensible, they can easily become monsters, since they are divorced from the concept they came from. An example might be the password or the identification number that authorizes one to some service or benefit. These words seem plain enough and understandable. But when you replace them with ID number or PIN, you have created a monster. You tend to use PIN where you shouldn't or even when it does not make sense. I have heard many references to "PIN number", which means "personal identification number number", which shows that the user has forgotten what the acronym means. Dean apparently forgot what POWMIA means and used it to mean any missing person. If he had taken the trouble to spell it out, he would have started to say, "Prisoner of war or missing in action", and then would have noticed that it implied military service by his brother, and would not have made the remark. Don't use acronyms; it is the easiest way to be misunderstood.
But on the whole, I think that Dean's "gaffes" actually make him a better candidate. In light of his comment today, I say it makes him more truthful than the other candidates, and that is what we need in the government, the media and other places in our society today: the truth. I would rather have a President that makes gaffes instead of one that tells lies. So therefore I lean towards Dean for the Democratic candidate for President.
Well today is the big day. The Iowa caucuses meet tonight to decide on Iowa's choices for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States in the 2004 election. It looked like Dr. Howard Dean was going to win easily, but the contest has become close; it is close to a four-way tie.
Today I went to the Fox news site and found two video interviews by Fox news, one of Dean, and one of Iowa Senator Richard Gephardt. Gephardt said the usual stuff that I would expect of a Democratic candidate - doubting what Bush is doing and presenting Democratic agenda. So far, most of the candidates have been like that, making me indifferent between all of them as of late - all of them would be a much better President than Bush is. But when I listened to the Dean video I heard something that makes him stand out from the others.
When asked about the gaffes he has made recently, he said, "A gaffe in Washington is when somebody tells the truth and people in Washington don't think they should have." Interesting. If that's the case, then we want people who commit gaffes to be our next President, because we can trust that President to tell us the truth. In other words, statements made by Washington politicians are either gaffes or lies.
So I looked among the gaffes of Dean on the Internet and found this one from the Concord Monitor: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best … in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." If this is a gaffe, then I want all the Democratic candidates to make gaffes all over the place. Our government is based on the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that this is a universal principle that holds for all defendants, including Osama. To me it is surprising that so many people hold this against Dean, so much that he took a partial retraction of it. Maybe people in this country don't want a democracy and a government of laws. All that Dean was stating was that the job of judging is given to the courts, not to the executive branch or especially the media.
Another one is where he said he wanted the support of men driving pickup trucks with Confederate flags on them. Again, I think this is what he should want. Not only should these men vote for Dean, but they should also replace those Confederate flags with US flags or with Earth flags.
In another one, he said that his brother was a POWMIA when actually he was an anti-war protestor who visited Laos and was never seen again. This is an easy mistake to make: he used an acronym. Acronyms are quite often incomprehensible, and even when they are comprehensible, they can easily become monsters, since they are divorced from the concept they came from. An example might be the password or the identification number that authorizes one to some service or benefit. These words seem plain enough and understandable. But when you replace them with ID number or PIN, you have created a monster. You tend to use PIN where you shouldn't or even when it does not make sense. I have heard many references to "PIN number", which means "personal identification number number", which shows that the user has forgotten what the acronym means. Dean apparently forgot what POWMIA means and used it to mean any missing person. If he had taken the trouble to spell it out, he would have started to say, "Prisoner of war or missing in action", and then would have noticed that it implied military service by his brother, and would not have made the remark. Don't use acronyms; it is the easiest way to be misunderstood.
But on the whole, I think that Dean's "gaffes" actually make him a better candidate. In light of his comment today, I say it makes him more truthful than the other candidates, and that is what we need in the government, the media and other places in our society today: the truth. I would rather have a President that makes gaffes instead of one that tells lies. So therefore I lean towards Dean for the Democratic candidate for President.
2004/01/18
Statistically complicated data
I have posted a new mathematics page, namely "Hamlet, Part II: Complicated Numbers". In this one I show that there are seven levels of complexity of numbers, and that almost all numbers that we deal with in everyday life, even those discussed among professional mathematicians, are in the simplest category, the countably complicated numbers. These numbers take a thousand symbols or less to describe. The next category is statistically complicated numbers, taking a thousand to a quadrillion symbols to describe. The best example I can think of, of a statistically complicated number, is ten thousand digits drawn at random in a row.
But not only numbers can be complicated. So can groups of numbers, and in fact databases. For example, the account history of all account holders at the Bank of America is statistically complicated; it probably takes billions of symbols to describe, as one has to describe each person and each transaction separately. It is a marvel in our age that our computers can handle such databases. But isn't it easier to think in terms of countably complicated structures where you can? Instead of stating for each person in a group of people, such as a Girl Scout troop or a military unit how much food each requires in a day, instead come up with some rule saying that each person requires, say, 3.2 kilograms a day (don't use this figure for planning purposes; I made it up). That is countably complicated, instead of listing it for each person separately, which would be statistically complicated for a group of 1,000 or more people.
In many places, it may pay to research into finding countably complicated rules to describe things rather than statistically complicated databases.
I have posted a new mathematics page, namely "Hamlet, Part II: Complicated Numbers". In this one I show that there are seven levels of complexity of numbers, and that almost all numbers that we deal with in everyday life, even those discussed among professional mathematicians, are in the simplest category, the countably complicated numbers. These numbers take a thousand symbols or less to describe. The next category is statistically complicated numbers, taking a thousand to a quadrillion symbols to describe. The best example I can think of, of a statistically complicated number, is ten thousand digits drawn at random in a row.
But not only numbers can be complicated. So can groups of numbers, and in fact databases. For example, the account history of all account holders at the Bank of America is statistically complicated; it probably takes billions of symbols to describe, as one has to describe each person and each transaction separately. It is a marvel in our age that our computers can handle such databases. But isn't it easier to think in terms of countably complicated structures where you can? Instead of stating for each person in a group of people, such as a Girl Scout troop or a military unit how much food each requires in a day, instead come up with some rule saying that each person requires, say, 3.2 kilograms a day (don't use this figure for planning purposes; I made it up). That is countably complicated, instead of listing it for each person separately, which would be statistically complicated for a group of 1,000 or more people.
In many places, it may pay to research into finding countably complicated rules to describe things rather than statistically complicated databases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)