Author Archives: Shawn R. McDonald

After Politics

I don’t plan on doing one thing all my life. During one phase of my life, I will devote myself to politics. After politics, I want to devote my life to science.

Job for the Summer

I have a job for the summer. I’m going to be self-employed. I’m going to be working on The Chalkboard Manifesto full-time. I’ll be able to redesign the site (including overhauling the archives), add merchandise, increase updates to 5x a week, and build a community of readers around my comic.

I’m really excited about this!

I don’t foresee making as much money as last summer. However, this will not only be more fun than my last job, but it will be more fulfilling. It will be a project based on my own initiative. The project will require much self-discipline, which is one of the most important skills to have. Having my own business venture is a goal of mine. This will not only fulfill that goal but be good practice for the next big thing.

The best part, though, will not be the merchandise, but the community. I’ve rediscovered the notion of self-concordant goals and realized that what keeps me going is connection to my readers. My goal is to develop relationships with them. Furthermore, I want to associate TCM with my political writing. I don’t know if my views will turn off some fans, but I think it’s better to have more ardent fans than many, many fairweather fans. They’re the ones who buy the merchandise anyway, and they’re the ones e-mailing me, anyway. They’re the important fans.

I don’t know how well this whole thing will go. But I plan on spending my entire summer working on this. The merchandise will come after the increase in readership, of course. I’m not nearly prepared enough to build a business venture, but I should have enough hours to prepare myself. This’ll be a lot of fun.

Brawl COIN Match

Wow, video games are getting more and more complex. I started Super Smash Brothers: Brawl and wanted to try a COIN Match. It was rough. Once the Goombas suicide bombed my embassy, I decided to call it quits.

It’s Over, But She Should Stay

It’s over. Barack Obama is essentially the nominee. By every metric, Barack Obama is ahead. Whether you count total delegates, pledged delegates, or popular vote, Barack Obama has an insurmountable lead. He has this lead even if you count Michigan and Florida, which had their delegates stripped due to breaking party rules. The Clintons have no more trump card.

It’s not impossible for her to win, just incredibly unlikely. Let’s make a football analogy. It’s first and 10, there’s less than 2 minutes on the clock. All Obama has to do is take a knee. He doesn’t even have to play defense anymore. And even if he fumbles it away, she has to get a field goal, retrieve the onside kick, and score a touchdown. It’s over.

Obama has essentially been running out the clock. As more and more delegates were dealt either way, Obama retained his lead. Clinton never made a significant dent. At some point, one runs out of time to regain the lead. Clinton has run out of time. There aren’t enough delegates left.

This is true even when you factor in superdelegates. By the end of the process, even you give Clinton a generous number of pledged delegates, she’ll need to convince over two-thirds of the remaining superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. If you give her a generous number of Florida and Michigan delegates, the number decreases, but she still has to convince more than a majority of superdelegates to switch sides.

It’s not only a tall order; it’s essentially impossible. Many superdelegates have already said they’ll vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegates. Psychologically, the superdelegates are afraid of backlash and afraid of turning away a generation of energized voters.

Clinton started out with a 100 superdelegate lead on Obama, and now they’re essentially tied. Just today, Obama picked up 3 superdelegates and a Clinton superdelegate defected. Clinton picked up one. Clinton has 271 superdelegates; Obama has 261 superdelegates. That’s over 500 delegates who have picked one side or the other. There’s less than 800 superdelegates total. There are less and less superdelegates to convince, and they’ve all been coming to the Obama camp. I don’t know of any defections the other way around.

She can’t win.

That being said, I think Clinton should stay. If she stays in the race without launching super negative attacks, then I think it’s good that she stays in. She looks as if she’ll win Kentucky and West Virginia. It’ll look really bad if Obama loses those states running against no one. Obama will win in Oregon on May 20, achieve a majority of pledged delegates, and then a wave of superdelegates will switch. She should still stay in longer and make Obama’s final June 3 victories more meaningful.

Why should we continue with these beauty contests? Because they have real consequences. The primaries and caucuses have seen record turnouts in many states. We want more Democrats registered to vote in the primaries. When they vote in a primary, they’re more likely to vote in the general. Voter turnout will be key to defeating McCain.

If Clinton refrains from personal negative attacks, this will be a net positive for the Democrats. The convention is not until August, and we will see a huge post-convention bounce for Obama. Don’t listen to the polls saying Clinton or Obama voters will switch to McCain. They won’t. These polls are as useless as those saying Rudy Giuliani was the man to beat — mind you, Giuliani did not win a single primary or caucus. It’s way too early to judge that (and if you want, I’ll pull out my knowledge of cognitive science to prove it). When Democratic primary voters look at the war, the economy, and health care, they’ll know that they prefer Obama. No matter how you spin it, record turnout for Democratic primaries is not going to help McCain.

Let Clinton finish the game. Maybe I’m giving the Clintons too much credit, but I think they can do it with dignity. I think going to the end, and getting Michigan and Florida seated, will reduce any bitterness. Forcing her out may engender too many hurt feelings, but leaving her in can mean more new Democratic voters.

Again, this assumes Clinton runs a decent campaign here on out. If she doesn’t, the superdelegates should force her out.

Brief Elation

It was a wonderful day, punctuated by a sense of foreboding.

Obama has pulled ahead even further today. Win or lose in Indiana, it will be too close to make Clinton’s advantage more than negligible. He will wipe out any gains she made in Pennsylvania. The noose tightens.

Yet Clinton’s speech gives me reason to not think this is wrapped up. Clinton will fight to the convention. She will fight for the illegitimate primaries in Michigan and Ohio. It will be an ugly fight, I fear.

The next primaries will be important. We must put this beyond Clinton’s reach. I guess I’m going to have to reach into my pocketbook again.

EDIT: The alternative scenario is that the threat of a bloody battle is used as a bargaining chip. But what would they (Bill and Hillary Clinton) want in exchange? Would Clinton be satisfied with the Vice Presidency? Will she want a cabinet position? I’m just not sure that anything short of the presidency will satisfy her; hence, I fear a bloody battle.

UPDATE: MSNBC says the math means Clinton can’t make up the difference even with Florida and Michigan whether you count pledged delegates or popular vote.

UPDATE: More people on MSNBC are saying, “It’s over.” Clinton has cancelled all her appearances tomorrow. Will she quit?

UPDATE: Brit Hume looks grouchy and looks like he wants to go home already. One of the Fox News commentators points out that Bill Clinton had a “sour” look on his face while Hillary Clinton was giving her speech. Big loss for Clinton tonight.

UPDATE: Mayor of Gary on the phone with CNN. Did not have a good explanation for why it took so long to get any votes in. I’m suspicious of any vote tallies, so I suspect we may not know who really won Indiana any time soon. It doesn’t matter though. This is out of reach for Clinton.

More Fighting in Baghdad

More violence in Baghdad: Iraqi civilians flee fighting in Baghdad militia stronghold.

The American push in the Sadr City district — launched after an Iraqi government crackdown on armed Shiite groups began in late March — is trying to weaken the militia grip in a key corner of Baghdad and disrupt rocket and mortar strikes on the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

But fresh salvos of rockets from militants arced over the city, wounding at least 16 people and drawing U.S. retaliation that escalated civilian panic and flight to safer areas.

One rocket — apparently aimed at the Green Zone — blasted the nearby city hall. Three 122 mm rockets hit parts of central Baghdad, including destroying some playground equipment in a park. An Iraqi police station was damaged by a rocket that failed to detonate, the U.S. military said.

I’m going to reiterate this. The stated purpose of the surge was to decrease violence in Baghdad to create space for political reconciliation.

No political reconciliation. Violence on the rise.

The surge has been a complete strategic failure.

The boulder has rolled back down the hill.

Utterly predictable and utterly preventable.

Remember, this is not the work of “terrorists” nor Iran. This was instigated by Maliki, who is using our soldiers to fight his civil war. This is despicable.

It is time to leave Iraq.

I Saved My Life For $1.00

I found A.M. Homes’s This Book Will Save Your Life in the bargain bin at Barnes and Noble. It was priced at $1.00 and seemed like the kind of book I would like, so I grabbed it. Plus, saving my life for a buck? Good deal.

It’s about this guy, Richard Novak, who was living a life cut-off from the outside world. Every morning he puts on these noise-cancelling headphones, which seemed to underscore the point of him cocooned from the outside world. He is “functionally dead,” as the book jacket describes him. After a few crises, including a bout of intense pain that sends him to the hospital, he starts opening himself up to people, making new friends in a startlingly (for the reader) easy manner.

I enjoyed the book’s message, about re-connecting with the world around you, but I think my enjoyment can be explained by two factors: my current status in life and the fact that the book only cost me $1.00. One of my roommates had just left for the rest of the semester, so I was busy reacting to that, closing myself off. The feeling of getting a good bargain for the book made me appreciate the book more. So this book may not be as fun or meaningful if you’re not somewhat depressed and disconnected, and you paid too much for the book.

I’m still confused about the book’s title. Was it meant ironically or unironically? Is there a wink there at the end of the title? If it’s meant seriously, I said I enjoyed the book’s message, but it wasn’t as profound as Aristotle. If it’s meant not so seriously, I have failed to find the bite that makes it funny. In fact, while I found the absurd events in the book funny, I found them funny because they were absurd. I did not find them funny because of any satirical edge.

I marked two passages in the book. They were both passages where things didn’t go as planned, and it wasn’t so easy making a new connection. I found them more… poignant, I guess is the word, although I use that with less of a degree than it deserves.

In the first passage, Richard has just paid for a homeless man’s meal:

“Have a nice day,” Richard calls after him, annoyed that the guy didn’t say thank you.

The man turns around. “Have a nice day. I’m homeless. What does that mean, ‘Have a nice day’? Go fuck yourself.”

“You can’t change the rules overnight,” Anhil says.

It’s a hilarious passage, but that’s the end of Richard’s interactions with the homeless.

The second passage is about his neighbor. She lives below him, and he sees her swimming every morning. Richard goes to her party uninvited and finally meets her.

… Finally he spots a familiar gesture, the turn of her head, the flicking of her hair.

He goes to her. “I just wanted to say hello.”

The minute she turns toward him he wishes he hadn’t come; she’s different in person — her eyes are brown when he was expecting blue, and there’s a harshness that leaves him with a sinking sensation. She’s not who he thought she would be. He feels out of place, and he’s got a cashew stuck in his throat. He coughs. “I’m your neighbor, up the hill.”

“Are we being too loud?” she asks.

“No, no. I heard the party and I just wanted to say hello. I see you swimming every morning. I’m up early.”

“Which house?”

He points up the hill — from here his house looks good. “The one with the sinkhole. Last week a horse fell in and Tad Ford [the actor] came and got him with a helicopter — that was a big adventure. Maybe you saw it on TV?” She shakes her head no. “Well, hopefully, the house won’t slide down the hill; then we’d really be neighbors.” He laughs. She doesn’t. “Anyway, I just wanted to say hello, to introduce myslef.” He’s talking as he’s backing towards the door. “I’m Richard. I see you every morning, I stand at the glass, I watch you doing your laps.” He meant it as a compliment: she was his inspiration, his muse, his mermaid. He goes home wishing he’d left it as it was — in his mind’s eye.

I guess this passage illustrates what bugs me about the book. This is an isolated event; otherwise, it’s easy for him to go around making new friends. Shouldn’t there be more disconnected people just like he used to be? Shouldn’t they not give a shit about him? Shouldn’t they be harder to reach out to?

So I didn’t really save my life for $1.00. Despite my criticisms, it’s a really fun book to read. It’s underlying message about reaching out to people around you is good, but the book’s just not one you’ll re-read for insight about life.

I am a junkie

How can you tell if you’re a political junkie? If you’re not completely tired of this election, and in fact, you’re really excited about the next primary, then you might be addicted to politics. As I am.

By the way, I predict a split. Obama takes North Carolina; Clinton takes Indiana. Barely. Advantage: Obama, in delegates.

Examining the Problem of Evil

If you asked me why I don’t believe in God, I could give you a myriad of answers. Among the more convincing answers (in my mind) would be the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil asks why there can be evil in the world if God is all-powerful and all-good. Would he not eradicate evil? When I think of all the pain and suffering, I truly do find the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being to be absurd.

I recently read Alvin Plantinga’s book God, Freedom, and Evil. My edition was published in 1977 and reprinted in 1983. I was referred to the book by my professor for my class Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Our topic for the class was religion. We’d read Plantinga’s “Theism, Atheism, and Rationality” for class. I read God, Freedom, and Evil because I needed it to write my final paper.

The book’s divided into two parts: 1) Natural Atheology, and 2) Natural Theology. The bulk of the book is devoted to the Problem of Evil. It also addresses the compatibility between freedom and omniscience. The second part quickly touches on the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and then spends most of its time on the ontological argument. The Problem of Evil was most relevant to my paper topic and, coincidentally, the part I found most interesting.

Plantinga uses what he calls the Free Will Defense to escape the Problem of Evil. This must be distinguished from a project of theodicy. Theodicy tries to explain why God created evil. For example, Milton’s Paradise Lost could be said to give an account of evil in the world. The Free Will Defense does not purport to know the mind of God. Plantinga’s goal is just to show that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good and Evil exists are logically consistent.

It’s a complicated and long argument. The summary in my essay was already inadequate and a blog entry will surely compress it more. The main things to understand are the limits on omnipotence and transworld depravity. God does not have the power to make 2+2=5 (according to Plantinga); God can do only what is logically possible. So God’s ability to eliminate evil is subject to logical constraints. If by removing one evil he were to create more evil, then he could not remove that evil.

Transworld depravity. Goodness, I had to read that passage a bajillion times in order to understand it. I’m not sure I can summarize it in a way that makes sense to anyone without some background in philosophy. I’ll do my best. Someone suffers from transworld depravity if there’s some moral action where he’ll always make the morally wrong decision. If God created a world where the person has to make a choice, the person will do something morally wrong. If God makes the person make the right choice, then he has removed free will. So if we assume that all people would suffer from transworld depravity then there’s no way God could have made a universe where people are free but there’s no evil.

Still with me? Well, what about volcanoes and tsunamis one may ask. Surely there’s no free will involved there. Plantinga says perhaps there are nonhuman persons who cause these natural disasters. It’s a preposterous claim, but he’s not purporting the truth of it. He’s just showing that God and the existence of evil aren’t logically inconsistent.

Has this shaken my belief in the Problem of Evil? To be honest, it has shown me that the Problem of Evil is not as ironclad as I thought. I have heard versions of a free will defense from theists before, but never from anyone well-versed in philosophy. Their versions made no sense, and this one does.

The Problem of Evil still appeals to me on a visceral, non-rational level. I’m still perplexed when I see death on a massive scale (from afar) and people insist that a perfect God exists. (If you believe in an imperfect God, I will be less perplexed at your belief.) There are other versions of the Problem of Evil, and it would be interesting to study those.

If I were to embark on a critique of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, I would be tempted to go in many directions. When I think about it, though, I would have to concentrate on one thing. I think free will is a nonsensical concept because of the way I think our minds work (which is strongly influenced by Hofstadter’s I am a Strange Loop). Typically, free will is envisioned as some last minute mechanism in our brain. We get all the inputs, and then this mysterious “free will” thing takes over right before the decision is made. There’s some sort of gap. I don’t think there is. That’s not to say that we’re all mindless automata. Far from it. Decision-making is so much more complex and wonderful than this magical free will concept.

Can Plantinga’s defense not theodicy strategy work here? No, because if free will is not a logical phrase, then God could not have created it. Ergo, a free will defense cannot be used.

Of course, this kind of criticism is beyond the scope of this weblog entry. I am, furthermore, ill-equipped to embark on such a project at this time.

After reading this book, if someone were to ask me to articulate the Problem of Evil, I would recognize that I couldn’t do it in a way that I could not refute myself. I’ve learned that something I thought was a sure thing isn’t such a sure thing. After this book, I have less certainty, but more knowledge. That’s enough to make the book worth the read.

New Links

Pharyngula — PZ Myers writes about atheism and science. This is mainly how I keep up with the Evil Atheists Conspiracy.

Power, Seduction and War — This is Robert Greene’s blog. He’s the author of The 48 Laws of Power, which I have, and The Art of Seduction and The 33 Strategies of War, which I plan on getting. If you admire Machiavelli’s works, then you’ll admire Greene’s writing. Honestly, I admire this guy’s writing a lot.

RyanHoliday.net — Ryan Holiday works for Robert Greene. I enjoy this blog because Holiday constantly reads and puts up the insights he gleans from these readings (and insights from other experiences). These insights seem like they’ll be useful in my life’s journey.

Turning Pro — Found this via Ryan Holiday’s blog. He struggles with the problem of life in a way which I can relate to.

Featured Poems — Saul Nadata was my Intro to Fiction and Poetry I and Intro to Fiction and Poetry II instructor. Also, he was one of my favorite and most helpful instructors at JHU. This blog is his attempt at 365 poems in 365 days. I know Saul will have a marvelous career as a writer.

Drinking For Two — Fucking hilarious.

I am also currently reading these: Lifehack.org, Smashing Magazine, Web Worker Daily. However, I’m unsure if they’ll stay daily reads over the next few weeks.

I removed Daryl’s blog from my blogroll because it’s defunct.

Book Reports and Updating the Blog Roll

I’ve decided that I’m not reading right. So, I’ve made it a rule that after I finish reading a book, I have to do a book report of sorts. I’ll post it on the blog. It may be a summary, writing what I’ve learned, connecting it to something, listing my favorite quotes, or some combination of the above.

I also need to update the blogroll. I’m going to list all the new links and why I read them.

My One Accomplishment

As I reflect on the academic year, I realize that I only have one accomplishment of worth: Winning the Guess the TV Theme Show competition with my roommate Keith. That will be the story I tell to my grandkids. I just think it’s sad that by that time, the robots will have killed all the humans.

Friendship with those you disagree with

It is important to maintain friendships with people you disagree with. Moreover, you must disagree with them in fundamental ways; they must challenge your most basic assumptions. You must stretch your mind beyond where it’s comfortable.

I’m of the opinion that you never grow unless you do things which make you uncomfortable. And if you do not grow, you will stagnate instead of staying constant. Having friends who always agree with you or disagree with you in comfortable ways means that you will intellectually shrivel.

Iraq: Still a Mess

We’re still fighting in Baghdad. Goodness, I thought the surge was supposed to end this. Instead…

Until Maliki’s push into the southern city of Basra, U.S. troops were not intensely engaged in Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood of roughly 3 million people that was among the most treacherous areas for U.S. forces early in the war.

But the southern offensive set off a violent chain reaction that spread quickly to Shiite sectors of the capital and has severely strained the cease-fire Sadr imposed on his followers in August and recently reaffirmed. U.S. troops, fighting at times Tuesday on foot and backed by air support, are now engaged in the kind of urban battle within Sadr’s stronghold reminiscent of the first years of the war.

Let’s repeat that. We’re engaged in the same sort of urban warfare that we were engaged in during the first years of the war. Just what have we accomplished in Iraq?

Meanwhile, we’re too busy talking about Reverand Wright to talk about the fighting in Iraq:

“Sadr City is under the American hammer and nobody is monitoring it,” said Leewa Smeisim, the head of the Sadr movement’s political bureau.

Iraq is on the brink of an all-out civil war. As I noted before, Sadr has threatened all-out war. His followers are “growing more eager for an all-out war to defend themselves,” as the Washington Post’s story says.

Here we are, in a very dangerous situation. Why doesn’t the press grill John McCain on this? Why do we focus on the Distraction of the Day?

Remember, this is why we’re voting for Obama. To end this endless war.

Tactics and Denial

This is amazing, check out this from Bill Kristol…

On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.

Hm. How about Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia? You can watch the clip of Kingston on that link. Jack Kingston thinks it’s perfectly fine to question Obama’s patriotism.

These people are not unnamed, nor are they “allegedly” challenging his patriotism. There are real Republicans out there attacking Obama on his patriotism.

That’s some real gall, but that’s the modus operandi of the Republican Party. Lie, lie, lie. Say you’re for fiscal conservatism, and yet sanction a trillion dollar, fiscally insane war. Say you’re for rugged individualism, and then get your job through nepotism. Say that no one’s engaging in those sorts of nasty attacks, and then slime slime slime.

Meditation on Epiphanies

Epiphanies never come from nowhere.

I keep journals. I log my life. I log my thoughts. I log my metaphysics.

If I ever have an epiphany, I can always look back and find the seeds of that epiphany. There are always patterns. Hidden amongst other words, between other thoughts, you will find traces of that epiphany. You’ll see it come up over and over. You’ll see the idea in several books you’ve read. In fact, sometimes you’ll find the epiphany explicitly written out, but in a different way.

An epiphany is just when you understand something in a new, profoundly meaningful way.

I find that science and nature are most helpful in creating epiphanies. Imagination is a powerful tool, but it is limited by its inputs. Nature shocks us. Many great discoveries in astronomy did not occur earlier merely because we lacked the imagination to comprehend reality. Our myths, all our great religions, never measure up. Reality is much more mind-boggling than any story. As a result, science helps me look at issues from new angles. Science provides me with new metaphors to understand my life.

The key to the ephiphany is to never give up on your most deeply held questions. Continue to examine them from every angle. Use every different discipline to view your problem through different lenses. Science, sports, martial arts, arts, business — all of these not only have different ways of solving your problem, they have different ways of comprehending your problem. But most importantly, you must stretch yourself. If you seek an epiphany, you must go beyond even where your imagination is comfortable.

Keep writing. When you write nothing down, you never progress. You’re stuck in the same position; you can’t see your problem using new viewpoints.

Themes are born. Themes die. Themes are reborn. This cycle continues until, all at once, you’ve examined a theme from sufficient angles, you’ve fleshed it out enough, to have that epiphany. Instead of disparate strands of knowledge, you have a unified solution. Instead of a jumble of feverish words, you have one profound sentence. There is your epiphany.

An epiphany is nothing altogether new. An epiphany is the result of a thousand rebirths.

The Corrupt Arbiters

In your perfect system, who will be the arbiters? Who will decide how we ought live? Who are these hyper-rational beings who will decide things based only upon logic?

Do realize that this is the road to tyranny.

We are as sure of the corrupting influence of power as we are of the pull of gravity. If indeed your arbiters are human beings, then they will be corrupted.

What human being can resist the temptation of power? What human can resist the lie for his own gain? He who sets the rules will set up rules for his own gain. He will fool the people.

If we set up multiple arbiters, we are still dealing with human beings. They will collude in order to devour the masses, or devour each other. Most likely, both will occur. When they see that much power up for grabs, they will scheme.

No human beings are exactly alike. They will have different forces of will. Factions will arise. Just as surely as galaxies gathered from the gravitational pull of mere differences in density, even if the differences are slight, factions will arise. We have different temperaments. We will like some people more than others. Any council is doomed to disagreement. And any council of arbiters with unlimited power will either explode into war or collapse into one demonic being.

The rational are easy to fool. They fail to notice the devious motivations of others because deviousness is so contrary to their own natures. The sharks easily feed on these guppies. The devious tyrant will overtake any council of rational arbiters.

Or the messianic will captivate the masses. How will you control him except by violence?

People will laugh at your rational arbiters. Any child knows that “because it’s for your own good” is not a very compelling argument. How will you control them except by violence?

The more violent you are, the more you’ll attract the wrong type of people. The more you open yourself up to a War Leader who has actually earned the respect of the masses, more so than your arbiters in their Ivory Tower.

Any system which values the abstract over the contingencies of history and the fickle nature of human beings will end up as either a tyranny or an anarchy. Any absolute system will necessarily use violence to compel the people to do its biddings. Any absolute arbiters will have people who chafe under their rule. These absolute arbiters will inevitably become corrupt.

Human experience has shown that the only way to avoid the problem of corruption is to separate and balance power, like our co-equal branches of government. You must also limit the time people can hold power. It is messy. But I much rather prefer this to rivers of rational bloodshed.

Comedian

I don’t thnk I can ever be a comedian. I wouldn’t mind telling humiliating stories about myself for laughs, but I don’t have any particularly good stories. I lack the penchant for putting myself in humiliating situations.

Then again, I could always tell humiliating stories about other people.

Tactile Belt

I was thinking about something like this about a month ago. It’s a belt that goes around your torsoe and creates tactile sensations, either through vibration or heat. I’d use it to cheat on tests, by providing me with information I otherwise couldn’t memorize. (Of course, maybe all the time I spent building the belt and developing a language for that belt to communciate in would’ve been better spent studying.)

Looks as if the military’s been working on something similar for a while. Theirs differs in that they’re focusing on remote communication, not cheating on exams.

Links:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/darpa-wants-sol.html
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn10846-vibrating-vest-could-send-alerts-to-soldiers.html

3 Confessions for April 23

  1. I feel perpetually off-center when I’m at school, and normal when I get home.
  2. Sometimes I get really paranoid that people secretly hate me.
  3. I tell people that I really love pancakes, but I just think they’re okay.

Note: I debated whether to add “Because I secretly hate you” to the second one. I decided against it because 1) it wasn’t true, and 2) it sounded cliche upon second reading.

Big States again

I wish I didn’t have to bring this up again, but it’s frustrating how the media buys into false campaign narratives. They pick up spin in order to make a story. I kept hearing how Obama can’t win big states.

Clinton gets to count New York as a big state, but somehow Illinois doesn’t count even though it has more delegates than Ohio.

Of course Obama couldn’t win Michigan and Florida. Everyone, Clinton included, agreed not to campaign in those states.

That Clinton’s campaign manager McCauliffe insists on counting them shows a despicable lack of regard for rules. I’d like to see what happens when Clinton comes up against laws she does not like. Will she simply spin them out of existence?

Furthermore, Obama won Texas, when you count all the delegates up.

Can we do a count again? There are seven “big” states she has claimed to have won: Texas, Ohio, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. Florida and Michigan don’t count. New York can’t count if Illinois doesn’t count. She lost the delegate count in Texas. That leaves Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California.

There’s something seriously wrong with the idea that only Clinton can win big states if only 3 out of the 7 supposed wins are legitimate. It’s bullshit.

Pennsylvania

I’m predicting a 10-point win for Clinton. I know it’s not likely, but I’m hoping for an upset. I long to type: “The nightmare is over.”

Even if Obama wins tonight, though, the nightmare won’t be over until November, when Obama beats McCain.

UPDATE: Clinton is projected to win. I 100% expected that result; I’ve been expecting it for a long time. I should be steeled, but I’m depressed.

UPDATE: 04/23/08 – A 10-point win. A correct prediction, for once.

Sadr Threatens Open Warfare

Sadr has threatened open warfare. I just want to know that if Sadr declares all-out war, can we then consider the war a failure? I’m just curious how far the right moves the goal posts. I mean, we’re supposed to be there to prevent a civil war, right?

They’ll probably argue that we have to help Maliki and his militia-dominated “national” government win. This, despite the fact that the current faction in power has better ties with Iran than al-Sadr. I thought we were supposed to prevent Iran from gaining influence, right?

The article mentions one way in which we are contributing to the tensions: “Tensions have been increased by the construction of a wall in the district by US and Iraqi forces.” I’m confused, isn’t the US supposed to be the stabilizing force in Iraq?

One final thing. Irony alert: “The [Basra] operation was criticised by US commanders as poorly planned and as failing to achieve its stated aims.” Hm. Pretty much like the entire Iraq War.

The right’s entire argument for staying in Iraq is a joke. They bring up the specter of genocide, even though ethnic cleansing occurred while we were there. We’re taking sides in an armed intra-Shiite battle for power; this is the opposite of preventing civil war and the opposite of political reconciliation.

It’s time to leave.