The New Yorker has a great endorsement of John Kerry. Or at least an endorsement of Not-Bush.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 30 October 2004 at 4:47 PM

The Economist (reluctantly) endorses Not-Bush. Link.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 30 October 2004 at 12:40 AM

During the time after a new president is chosen but before he or she is sworn in, the sitting president is considered a lame duck. This is a time when a president can act according to his true principles since he never needs to pander to the voters again.

If Bush loses the election, what will his lame duck period be like? When Bush Sr. was a lama duck he sent troops to Somalia to stop the genocide there. When Clinton was a lame duck he declared large swaths of the the American heartland to protected and tried to shore up environmental regulations. What will Bush Jr. do? I get scared thinking about it.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 29 October 2004 at 10:26 AM

Is anyone else as excited about Homo floresiensis as I am?

Update: Homo floresiensis is cool, but this whole article was amazing. Homo floresiensis "made stone tools with which they speared giant rats, clubbed sleeping dragons and hunted the packs of pygmy elephants that roamed their lost world." Every section of the article is just amazing. For example:

Also buried in the cave are a number of objects that illustrate how the little Floresians lived. There are bones of Komodo dragons, beasts 10 feet in length, and of an even larger lizard. The dragons can eat animals the size of deer, but being cold-blooded, they are sluggish at low temperatures and not so hard to kill. There are bones of the pygmy elephant, giant rat, fish and birds.

There is evidence that the Floresians knew the use of fire. And there is a suite of stone tools, considerably more sophisticated than any yet known to have been made by Homo erectus. The tools include small blades that might have been mounted on wooden shafts.

If the stone tools were made by the little Floresians, as Dr. Morwood believes, that is striking evidence of their cognitive abilities. Dr. Morwood says they must have hunted cooperatively to bring down the pygmy elephants. To conduct such hunts, and to fabricate such complex stone tools, they almost certainly had some form of language, he said.

Among today's Ngadha people of central Flores and the Manggarai of West Flores there are local stories of little people who lived in caves until the arrival of the Dutch traders in the 16th century.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 28 October 2004 at 3:09 PM

Apparently weblogs haven't made as deep an impact on our society as I thought. While having lunch with Jeremy today I mentioned something about weblogs and he professed not to know anything about them and even claimed he'd never heard the word "weblog" before. This struck me as a bit odd. Even famous people have weblogs these days. So, obviously everyone reading this has heard of weblogs before, but I was wondering what all of you thought of this. What percentage of the population do you think are familiar with weblogs?

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 28 October 2004 at 12:40 PM

Apparently the heavens aligned themselves against the Cards... or something. Talk radio fanatics are already blaming LaRussa, but I blame Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds. But I won't complain too much since there are 28 other teams that wish they could have lost a World Series.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 28 October 2004 at 10:39 AM

Now I get it. When you fight a non-traditional "war on terror" you don't have to follow the "rules of war" (because its not a war, silly. We just call it that because otherwise we'd be terrorists invading countries and overthrowing governments left and right.) But there is a subtle corollary to this rule that was just come to light. If you fight a traditional war you also don't have to follow the "rules of war" if you claim this traditional war is part of an overarching "war on terror."

Now, I'd like you to think back to sixth grade when you learned about the separation of powers and how a bill becomes a law. Do you remember the part about treaties signed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate having the full weight of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President? I do, but President Bush apparently missed that lesson (anecdotally, the President seems to have a reputation as a bit of a skipper, so this isn't too far-fetched).

I'm getting sick and tired of this administration persuading itself that moral certainty is more important that the law. We have a President who, quite literally, thinks he has a mandate from God and appears to believe he rules by divine right. Remember how Bush wouldn't own up to making any mistakes during the second debate? Well, that's perfectly in keeping with the theory of the Divine Rights of Kings "which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God." (Emphasis added.)

The more I think about Bush the more I believe that he really does believe he is doing God's work. His campaign appearances are reported to be "messiah-like" and he likes to sprinkle religious phrases into discussions of the decidedly secular legal framework of our country ("marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," emphasis added). Even the fact that Bush doesn't attend church supports this. After all, when you're on a mission from God you don't need someone else to translate for you.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 26 October 2004 at 8:45 AM

Here are a few Cardinals trivia questions to amuse yourself with while waiting for the Redbirds to win a game in the World Series. Answers are here.

Q: Who hit a grand slam in game four of the 1964 World Series to give the Cardinals a 4-3 win?

Q: In what year did Enos Slaughter make his "mad dash" from first base to home to score the go-ahead run in game seven of the World Series?

Q: In what year did Bob Gibson's record of seven consecutive World Series wins come to an end?

Q: Which Cardinal Hall of Fame inductee played for the Harlem Globetrotters before starting his baseball career?

Q: Which Cardinal left fielder was run over by the automated tarp at Bush Stadium during the NLCS in 1985?

Q: According to some fans, which umpire cost the Cardinals a World Series championship with a blown call at first base in game six of the 1985 World Series?

Q: Which Cardinal tied a record for home runs in a World Series game by a rookie in 1982?

Q: How many Triple Crowns did Rogers Hornsby win as a Cardinal?

Q: Which Cardinal catcher won the World Series MVP award in 1982?

Q: Which Cardinal batted .464 during the 1968 World Series?

Q: How many pennants and World Championships did the Cardinals capture during Stan Musial's first four full years in the major leagues?

Q: Which two Cardinal pitchers (and brothers) combined for all four Cardinals wins during the 1934 World Series?

Q: How many times have the Cardinals won the NL Pennant?

Q: The Cardinals retired uniform number 85 to honor a non-player. Who?

Q: Which Cardinal player was the first active player to have an award named after him?

Q: Who is the only player to have won the Cy Young Award while a Cardinal?

Q: Who is the most recent Cardinal to win the Rookie of the Year award?

Q: What was the nickname of the 1967 World Series-winning Cardinals team?

Q: What is one of the past names of the team now known as the Cardinals?

Q: What is the nickname of the 1944 World Series which pitted the St. Louis Cardinals against the St. Louis Browns?

Q: Which Cardinal was the last player to win an NL Triple Crown?

Q: In what year did the Cardinals participate in the first World Series with indoor games?

Q: Who is the only Cardinal player to have his number retired but not be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Q: In what year did the Cardinals first appear in the World Series?

Q: In what year did the Cardinals most recently return to the World Series?

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 25 October 2004 at 2:06 PM

I'll be honest with you: I don't like the TV-B-Gone device that seems to be all the rage these days. I can understand the motivations behind the device although I don't agree with the underlying premise, but that isn't what really ticks me off. What really and truly bothers me is the fact that this is a device that is being marketed as a philosophical decision not to watch television, but is in fact a device whose only true purpose is to either annoy others or force an opinion at others in an aggravating fashion. And I will have words with anyone who uses a TV-B-Gone on a television that I'm watching.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 25 October 2004 at 11:24 AM

NL CHAMPIONS!

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 21 October 2004 at 11:06 PM

Do any of you have any experience with satellite radio services such as XM Radio or Sirius? I'm thinking about getting satellite radio for my car and I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with some experience with it.

Comments: 4 Posted by david on 19 October 2004 at 2:20 PM

What follows is my "Election 2004 Conspiracy Theory."

I don't want to come off as a nut case when I say this, but I'm beginning to believe that there is something seriously wrong with President George W. Bush. Other blogs and media outlets picked up on some of the signs before I did (see this article for a quick primer on the "presenile dementia" argument and this blog for a video showing President Bush's deteriorating speaking), but I got the feeling just from watching the debates that there was something wrong with the president. In the first debate the President appeared to be dehydrated as he quickly ran through two glasses of water and then repeatedly tried to drink from empty glasses for the remainder of the debate. He also frequently appeared to lose his train of thought. One Bush partisan (my grandmother -- and trust me when I tell you that she doesn't normally engage in Bush criticism) admitted to me that the President looked ill during this debate. In the second debate President Bush was overly confrontational and often didn't appear to hear r understand interjections from the moderator. In the third debate the left side President Bush's face dropped noticeably and spittle formed at the corner of his mouth.

And then there's "the bulge." Some bloggers hypothesize that Bush was wearing a device designed for those at risk of cardiac arrest. The device doesn't seem to match the bulge, so this seems particularly far-fetched. Nonetheless, "the bulge" brings to light one more unanswered question.

Just recently I discovered that President Bush had delayed his annual August physical until after the November election because of his heavy campaign schedule (see this site for a full detailing of President Bush's known medical history). Because the results of presidential physicals are routinely released to the public, this delay justs adds to the body of anecdotal evidence that suggests something serious may be going on with regards to the President's health. (Here is another article that asks similar questions to the ones being posed here.)

Anyway, let's hope that the media presses on Bush to get a physical before the election. Then -- one way or the other -- we can put this whole issue to bed.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 19 October 2004 at 9:03 AM

The Astros need to figure out who their middle relievers are if they're going to win any games against St. Louis. Also, since Lidge is their only good reliever, they need to bring him in in non-save situations. But I'm glad they didn't do that tonight.

Comments: 1 Posted by david on 15 October 2004 at 12:07 AM