The Washington Post has published it's list of "What's In and Out for 2007."  It just shows me how out of touch I am with some parts of our society.  I've never heard of 95 percent of what's going out, much less of what's coming in.  Considering the nature of the stuff they list, my disconnected existence might be a good thing.

There is one thing that I relate to.  They say that Anderson Cooper is out and Keith Olbermann is in.  They've got to be kidding! It looks like the author of the list is the one in a different world.  Olbermann is the dopiest guy on television.  I suppose dopey is in.

---

The Associated Press reports that Houston's murder rate has hit a 12-year high and increased by 13.5 percent over 2005.  There were 379 homicides in 2006.  The mayor thinks at least part of the increase is due to the Katrina evacuees that settled in Houston.

Regardless of who's responsible that's a lot of murders -- more than one a day on average.  It seems that violence in this country is widespread.  I've mentioned before the level of violence in the City of Brotherly Love.  The army trains its surgeons there before sending them to the battlefield.  A professional athlete was gunned down while riding in his limousine in Denver recently.  Hip-hop artists seem to shoot at one another for diversion.

The average American is probably much more safe from violence than the average Iraqi, but how long will that be true?  Today there are areas in this country that are not that different from Baghdad.

---

Pat Buchanan makes good sense in a column on Townhall.com.  He argues that Americans' disposition to sacrifice for altruistic ends is waning.  The people, if not the government, are ready to pull back and let the rest of the world manage on its own.  He says:  "Interventionism has failed us. Americans are groping toward a new foreign policy that puts America first and a trade policy that puts Americans first." 

I tend to agree with him.  I'm fed up with our endless sacrifices and their constant carping.  If they hate us so much let's just come home and let them stew in their own juices.  In the process we should leave the United Nations and kick them out of the country.  Think of the money we could save.

---

The Associated Press reports that Pat Robertson has predicted a horrific terrorist act on the United States that will result in mass killing late this year:

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September. "I put these things out with humility," he said.

Yeah Pat, it's really humble to keep insisting that you have an open line to God. Here's a prediction of my own: Sometime in the next few years Robertson will run through the streets naked yelling, "Listen to me people! I am God! Send Money!" After that he will be forced out of his ministry and will start selling used cars.

In response to a summary of his mixed results from previous predictions:

"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

Since his predictions are based on his conversations with God, is he saying that God sometimes misses? Is God playing with him? It is said that God works in mysterious ways. I can think of nothing more mysterious than God working through Pat Robertson.

Have you ever noticed that very seldom is there a headline that announces a missed prediction? Occasionally someone will report on the spotty record of some prognosticator, but mostly we only hear about predictions that come true. The fact that the media tends to select the hits more than the misses reinforces the idea that certain people are able to predict future events.

---

The Associated Press reports that:

Hundreds of hay bales fell from the sky across Colorado's rangeland as military helicopter and cargo plane crews delivered food to cattle that have been stranded by the heavy snow and high drifts for a week."

Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that the hungry cattle are being fed? Well, I hope you get something out of it because you're paying for it. I seriously doubt that the ranchers who will profit from the saved cattle will be expected to foot the bill. If it was economically feasible and necessary to have air-drop capability available the ranchers would own and operate it themselves. Sure, they will lose cattle but they expect that; notice in the article that one of them admits that he has insurance to cover such losses.

This cattle feeding operation is not about the economics of cattle ranching, it's about saving the poor cattle. My and your tax dollars are being used to save a few cattle from starving to death so they can be slaughtered a few months later.

The worst part of this operation is that it is just a gesture; they don't really expect to save most of the trapped cattle. It's mostly about politicians attempting to garner favor with their constituents.

The picture accompanying the article shows the futility of the operation. How many trips will the sergeant and others have to make manually dragging two bales of hay across thigh-deep drifts of snow to feed all the hungry cattle? How many sorties will the Black Hawk have to fly to make a difference?

They are expecting another storm by the weekend.  The cattle might appreciate a little global warming.

---

Here's a simple problem to exercise your mind. You have two jugs. One holds three gallons and the other holds five gallons. There are no markings on the jugs except a full mark. Your task is to put precisely four gallons of water in the five-gallon jug using only the two jugs. You have an unlimited supply of water available. Describe how you would accomplish this in a comment. There are at least two ways to do it. Don't cheat by looking it up on the internet.

I got this from an old movie but different forms of this problem have been around for ages. The characters in the movie solved the problem but didn't say how -- at least not in the version I saw. You get extra credit if you can name the movie.

---

"My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "I think the sectarian violence there requires a political not a military solution." If that is what your conclusion was then why aren't you telling us what your conclusion is? Oh, OK, you meant to say 'is'.

How can any reasonably intelligent person believe that the problems in Iraq can be solved purely politically? How can she think that the various factions in Iraq are going to negotiate credibly without some kind of forcing function? Diplomacy can't function in chaos.

Without an outside contolling force, the only way out of internal chaos is for the competing factions to reach a standoff. A lot of time can pass and a lot of people can be killed in Iraq before that happens. As long as one faction believes it has the upper hand it won't be willing to give up anything at the negotiating table. What the outside force does is punish the faction with the upper hand until it becomes willing to negotiate.

Obviously this is not going to work if the outside force is unable to inflict sufficient punishment on the internal faction. If that is the case then more outside force is needed. More outside force can be achieved either by adding resources or by using the existing resources more effectively. Greater effectiveness might be achieved by changes in the existing personnel, equipment, strategy, tactics and training. Adding resources means increasing the amount of personnel and equipment.
_______________

I disdain Defense Department officials who say that sending more troops into Iraq will only result in more casualties. It seems to me that such a statement assumes that the additional troops will achieve no military objectives to be traded off against the additional casualties. If not that, then it suggests that the primary military objective in Iraq is to minimize casualties. Obviously this is not the case or we wouldn't have any troops there. Minimizing casualties should always be an objective but it can never be the primary objective.

If I were President I would fire a Defense official who tells me that he or she can't use additional resources when that official is not getting the job done.  Maybe that is what the President is doing now.

---

I'm talking about Chris Matthews' show on MSNBC, not baseball. On the Don Imus Show this morning Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and Imus talked about how much they both love Chris Matthews. I felt like puking. I can't say that I dislike Matthews personally because I don't know him personally. But I do despise his show and his persona on the show.

He talks too much and too fast. I've always been dubious of people who speak in a machine-gun-like staccato. They seem nervous or over excited. He seems to think that playing hardball is firing off a lot of questions at a rapid pace rather than asking well structured tough questions. It's easy to tell which guests he agrees with by the amount of time he gives the guest to respond to a question. A confrontational guest can count on being interrupted before completing any sentence.

Matthews seems to have two shows in the same time slot: Hardball and Softball. He plays hardball with some guests and softball with others depending on their political orientation. I'll let you decide who gets the hardballs.

---

Stonger Than a Falling Bullet: Woman's Bra Softens Bullet's Blow
What about her other garments? Was she wearing only a bra? Should she start wearing a bra on her head?

Police Plan to Question Man in Custody for Broncos Player's Slaying
Well, I would hope so. Will tomorrow's headline be: Police Plan to Guard Cell of Man in Custody for Broncos Player's Slaying?

Florida Fears Citrus-Leaf-Eating Butterfly
Oh great! We've got man-eating sharks and alligators and now we have to worry about butterflies.

Moose From Utah Transported to Colorado
I thought they were talking about an offensive lineman. But no, one day we're using helicopters to feed cattle, the next day we're using them to capture moose.

Gators Getting Along Fine Without Thomas
What would alligators do with a toy train anyway?

Florida Looks to Find a Way to Conquer Troy
How about using a very large wooden horse?

---

Just about everyone else has written about the Duke (non)rape case so I might as well add my two cents worth.

The mess that Mike Nifong has made of the Duke rape case makes me wonder how many similar cases and prosecutors are out there somewhere that aren't getting the kind of publicity that Nifong is getting. How many more are riding roughshod over the rights of the accused? Is this case just the tip of the iceberg?

Prosecutors seem to have almost unlimited power to charge and hold people on the flimsiest of evidence. Grand juries are supposed to function as a check on the power of the prosecutors, but in many cases they don't seem to be doing their jobs. They seem to think that a check means a blank check. It's obviously time for them to acquire some backbone and start challenging the prosecutors.

Since the advent of DNA analysis we have found that large numbers of innocent people were charged and convicted of serious crimes. Many of these innocents served decades in prison before finally being freed. Many more innocents are probably still in prison. I've long thought that we might do a better job of determining guilt or innocence on circumstantial evidence cases if we just flip a coin.

Courts rely too heavily on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors often try to convince jurors that a given 'coincidence' just couldn't happen. A good example comes from the Scott Peterson murder trial in California. Two facts in the case were that his wife's body was found in a particular body of water and that Peterson went fishing in that same body of water the same day that his wife was discovered to be missing. The prosecutor was able to convince the jury that this was just too great a coincidence to be believed; that in fact Peterson went there for the sole purpose of dumping his wife's body in the water.

There are at least two things wrong with the prosecutor's assertion. The first is that coincidences like that do happen every day; they just don't always involve a murder. How many times have you been hundreds of miles from home and bumped into someone you know hundreds of miles from their home? The second is that if before you consider the evidence you assume that Peterson is innocent, as jurors are supposed to, then the alleged coincidence doesn't have to be a coincidence at all. The murderer could have dumped the body after he or she heard that Peterson went fishing there to ensure that attention would be focused on Peterson if the body turned up later. A long shot? Perhaps so. But raises reasonable doubt? I think so.

Another problem I have with prosecutors is their practice of trying to convince jurors that if the defendant is a mean or naughty person then it is obvious that he or she is guilty. This was also present in the Peterson case. The fact that he was having an affair with another woman was considered evidence that he wanted to kill his wife. This idea runs counter to actual facts. The percentage of men having affairs that kill their wives is extremely small compared to the percentage of men having affairs that don't kill their wives.*

It was present in a case on Court TV this week. The prosecutor led the jury to believe that the defendant's belligerent and surly conduct on the witness stand was evidence of his guilt. If I was wrongly charged with a crime I think I might be belligerent and surly toward the prosecutor.

Trials today seem to be more about whether the prosecution or the defense wins than about whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

__________

*Someone might want to point out, though, that of those men that do kill their wives a large percentage of them are having affairs with other women. This is probably true but in this case we are starting with the fact that the men did kill their wives (confessions, strong physical evidence, etc.) and then examining their behavior before the act. In a trial we are supposed to start with the assumption that the defendant did not kill his wife. That is, we have to assume that the defendant is no different than the entire population of men who are having extramarital affairs. Further, it might be true that the percentage of men having affairs that kill their wives is larger than the percentage of men not having affairs that kill their wives. But, unless the former percentage is 100 this is still not an indicator of guilt.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next page -->