Well done, well done.



A 13-year old corrected a NASA projection on how likely it was that a specific asteroid would hit Earth. NASA said it was 1 in 45,000. The young fella said it was 1 in 450. It turns out the boy was right, and NASA has publicly acknowledged his correction. Not to mention probable job offers when the kid graduates from college, lawl. Cheers guys - here's to enjoying our time until approximately 2036!

In another story - I honestly had no interest but at a glance clicked on a link to an article titled "EPA urges Great Lakes residents not to flush old meds." Of course, the report was filed from Buffalo.



I'm not going to be alarmist about this one. We honestly have no idea to the extent this may be going on, or even if its dangerous at all. Its obviously not good, however, so I see this as a good practice being put in place. I wonder why they are worried about the drugs though - we've been dumping raw sewage into Lake Erie for decades. That is sort of like licking someone's butt every time we go for a drop of water out of the tap. Isn't that a more urgent waste control measure we should be considering for the Great Lakes?

Behold - 1986, Alan Partidge of the BBC on Seve Ballesteros.

We have a beautiful morning yet again! Just had to say that. I'm glad the better weather is coming because really there is only so much Battlefield 2142 (nearly to Brigadier General on online play) or Guitar Hero III I can play (I got my first 5-star on Expert!). Call me crazy but I kind of like digging my surroundings - maybe I'm a bit of a nerd but on nice days I like to get out and walk around the neighborhood checking out the houses. Winter robs me and all my neighbors of that joy, which is a true shame.

Anyway - on to the article.



First of all, I don't know if this is true, although I suppose if it came from a Republican strategist chances are they aren't lying about something like this. Personally I'd rather see Colin Powell do it, but he has no apparent interest in a political career. To be honest, who could blame him these days? Lawl.

Right now I don't really have an opinion on Condi as VP - she has cabinet level experience, which is as executive as you can get outside of the top two seats. Say what you will but she is an astonishingly brilliant lady. This strategist is claiming that Condi is actively courting the VP slot, which is, I have to say, what I find hard to believe about the whole thing. The previous word is that she was eager to go back into the academic world. If I'm John McCain and I'm picking between Condi and say, Mitt Romney, who do I choose?

On the Democrat side - I wonder who Barack Obama will pick. If he were clever he'd find a retired General that sees things his way, or maybe Bill Richardson. Many cynical raisings of an eyebrow occurred after seeing his La Raza-esque goatee he wore the day he endorsed Obama. Forget the potentially cynical use of facial hair angle, which I happen to think is funny but a bit silly. The goatee just looked shady, period! I think Bill Richardson should shave - he can more than stand on his credentials and he is a Democrat I have looooong respected. It would have been a coup for Al Gore to have picked him in 2000 instead of Lieberman.

I'm beyond Hillary getting the nomination - at this point for her to use the flaws in the system to her advantage would cut the party right in half. The numbers in NC right now are embarrassing. I think she likes being Senator if she can't be President... she won't throw away her entire political career. My brain tells me to insist on taking her at her word and that she'll ride it all the way to the convention, but a part of me also thinks when the cat calls finally get loud enough that they penetrate that Clinton cloud, for the sake of both her and her husbands reputation she will bow out before July. DNC rules as they stand are a mockery, and disenfranchisement is bad not just for Democrats but for the American political system as a whole. I would extend it and say that Clintons are bad for the American political system as a whole but you know, thats just me - and (e:james) possibly!

This just flashed in my head - if Hillary got the nomination, what would be the chances that she would pick her husband for VP? Is that even legal? Taft became Chief Justice after serving as POTUS but I don't know what the rules are for VP, since there are executive term limits and I don't know how or if that extends to VP. They are in the same branch of government, which is what makes me wonder about the legal angle. It may be inconsequential. Anybody know?

In other news...

Our landlady replaced our broken doorbell with one of those RF jobbies. Now my bell goes off randomly and nobody is ever at the door. Either they somehow set it up wrong, or something is interfering with the signal. You can imagine how annoying this was at 6:22am this morning. I'd ask how to fix it, but I think I'm just going to turn it off!

Liberals will simply never get it. I mean NEVER.



General Petraeus is not a political figure, he is a general officer in the United States armed forces.

I'm not making any friends by mocking this transparent pile of donkey shit cynically referred to by Democrats as support for our military men and women, but to be honest the facts are on my side. Nobody that claims to support military men and women would openly mock a general officer for saying something they disagree with by posting this while at the same time propping up military commanders that say things they do agree with.

It is an issue of respect. Liberals have none for military men and women. When you try to broadside David Petraeus while simultaneously sucking Wesley Clark's cock, you obviously don't respect the military - you use them to bolster political arguments and you think they are pawns on a political chessboard to be knocked over and cast aside on your way to the king.

Liberals aren't really being very clever here. Nobody actually believes that by and large liberals support the military, and liberals that are trying to make the argument are being utterly trumped by their own bretheren. Really, what is being portrayed is a startling lack of respect for Americans that have earned their place in this society. If I'm choosing sides, who am I choosing - a man who has a 30 year career and has dedicated his life to protecting the country, or am I going to choose some asshole blogger armchair quarterback that has absolutely no sophistication with military matters and an axe to grind? I'm not picking the loser at DailyKos - sorry.

You see, liberals have never understood something that is vital to why they have always failed at popularizing progressive politics nationally. Because you see literally everything through a politically motivated prism you are blind to the fact that everyone else really don't operate that way - not even the GOP. In the United States of America people get offended when they see you treat Gen. Petraeus the way you did because they know that he's earned every single piece of metal he wears on his uniform, and that by and large they think that liberal cynicism over Gen. Petraeus' motivations is completely unfounded. You cannot cheap shot a military officer and get away with it, and frankly, that is exactly what has happened.

This is why Americans don't trust liberal politicians with military issues. The last Democrat to give two shits about the military was JFK, and I have news (apparently) - Barack Obama is no JFK and never will be. I'll wait to see Jim Webb run for President before I trust a Democrat iwith the military, because there isn't one sorry example amongst his peers that is qualified to speak on behalf of military men and women besides him.

I know that liberals have not learned their lesson yet w/respect to General Petraeus. You'll see I'm right, and that is hardly something I get off on - if anything its depressing.

Its being hailed as a historic first - Boeing, as proof of concept, has successfully flown the first manned hydrogen battery powered airplane.



I tend to have a wild imagination, so when I see developments like this I get really excited. By their own admission they do not believe that this technology could be transferable to larger passenger aircraft but I don't see that as a failure. After all, what is wrong with marketing hydrogen-powered Cessnas that private individuals can fly at a drastically reduced operating cost? Seems like a winner to me. Or even better - perhaps in their quest to find more efficient means of running airplanes on alternative fuels they end up developing even better hydrogen technology that could be use in cars and trucks.

I think our government should be plowing money to companies who are doing work like this so that research can be sped up. After all, as far as I'm concerned anyway, for 30 years we've known how vulnerable our economic and political stability can be when crude prices fluctuate. It has to end, but where do we start? With ingenuity and technological developments like this one, which is being developed in private industry.

I happen to think that the only answer to effective and faster energy independence will be partnerships between government and private industry, in exactly the same way that military technological advancement takes place between the military and say, Skunkworks, or NASA and Northrop Grumman. Its too important - we have to pool public and private resources and intellectual capital to make it happen, just like we have in the past when quick technological advancements were in our best interests.

Then, maybe when China still insists on stealing secret American technology - - perhaps they will incorporate it into their own power scheme. China's pollution rate is climbing faster than its economy, which is scary.