Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Clear and unambiguous reporting.
Well, that sure cleared things up! Here's the first story on the Toronto Star about Stephane Dion's resignation (this is the entire text of the article):
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A very Liberal prediction
Neither Bob Rae nor Michael Ignatieff will be the next leader of the Liberal Party.
Why? Because as soon as the campaign begins, they will start reminding people why they voted for Dion -- Dion! -- instead.
Why? Because as soon as the campaign begins, they will start reminding people why they voted for Dion -- Dion! -- instead.
Monday, October 6, 2008
That doesn't look so bad.
This morning's 1000-point drop on the Toronto Stock Exchange was so bad, it broke Yahoo's stock ticker (note, the open was around 10,800 points):
Friday, October 3, 2008
Science: Gross and fascinating. (Grosscinating?)
In only the fifth recorded battle between pythons and alligators, we discover the following:
1. "Pythons versus alligators" is a question of legitimate academic interest; and
2. Yes, it is possible for a snake to swallow something so big, that its stomach explodes.
1. "Pythons versus alligators" is a question of legitimate academic interest; and
2. Yes, it is possible for a snake to swallow something so big, that its stomach explodes.
Monday, September 8, 2008
None of the above: An endorsement
You may have heard that we are facing an election. Let's review the major parties:
The Conservatives. To their credit they haven't governed too badly, mostly keeping the country going in a straight line from where the last administration left off. But two things are deal breakers for me. First, where's the vision? In trying to convince everyone that there's no hidden agenda, they seem to have jettisoned any coherent agenda at all. One has the sense of the Prime Minister in his office, gleefully moving tiny action figures around a huge map of Canada as he thinks up clever political tactics to deal with the issue of the day. Second, where's the credible environmental plan? This is probably the most important international issue of the decade, and Canada risks being on the outside looking in. So no vote for you, Mr. Harper.
The Liberals. Let's put aside the whole "Dion's a nerd and a weak leader" thing, and put our focus exactly where Dion wants it: on the environment. I have plenty to say about the plan itself, but I will restrict myself to this: Canada signed the Kyoto accord in 1997, and ratified it in 2002; both of these events took place under Liberal leadership. To 2005, at which time Canada remained under Liberal leadership, Canadian CO2 emissions had increased over 1990 levels by 26.6%, a larger percentage increase than even the non-signatory United States, and second-worst (to Spain) of the 36 countries for which Kyoto required CO2 reductions. For Mr. Dion, who was the goddamn environment minister from 2004-2006, to be using climate change as a campaign plank is hypocritical in the extreme, and automatically makes his environmental plan not credible. No vote for you.
The NDP. Sorry, but every time Jack Layton opens his mouth I feel like I'm being sold a used car. No vote for you.
The Greens. I was actually thinking about voting Green this time around. Then this happened. See under "Liberals". No vote for you.
The Bloc. Not running a candidate in my outside-of-Quebec riding, so I couldn't vote for them even in the unlikely event that I wanted to. No vote for you.
By the cold, calculating process of elimination, "A Random Process" is proud to endorse: None of the above.
The Conservatives. To their credit they haven't governed too badly, mostly keeping the country going in a straight line from where the last administration left off. But two things are deal breakers for me. First, where's the vision? In trying to convince everyone that there's no hidden agenda, they seem to have jettisoned any coherent agenda at all. One has the sense of the Prime Minister in his office, gleefully moving tiny action figures around a huge map of Canada as he thinks up clever political tactics to deal with the issue of the day. Second, where's the credible environmental plan? This is probably the most important international issue of the decade, and Canada risks being on the outside looking in. So no vote for you, Mr. Harper.
The Liberals. Let's put aside the whole "Dion's a nerd and a weak leader" thing, and put our focus exactly where Dion wants it: on the environment. I have plenty to say about the plan itself, but I will restrict myself to this: Canada signed the Kyoto accord in 1997, and ratified it in 2002; both of these events took place under Liberal leadership. To 2005, at which time Canada remained under Liberal leadership, Canadian CO2 emissions had increased over 1990 levels by 26.6%, a larger percentage increase than even the non-signatory United States, and second-worst (to Spain) of the 36 countries for which Kyoto required CO2 reductions. For Mr. Dion, who was the goddamn environment minister from 2004-2006, to be using climate change as a campaign plank is hypocritical in the extreme, and automatically makes his environmental plan not credible. No vote for you.
The NDP. Sorry, but every time Jack Layton opens his mouth I feel like I'm being sold a used car. No vote for you.
The Greens. I was actually thinking about voting Green this time around. Then this happened. See under "Liberals". No vote for you.
The Bloc. Not running a candidate in my outside-of-Quebec riding, so I couldn't vote for them even in the unlikely event that I wanted to. No vote for you.
By the cold, calculating process of elimination, "A Random Process" is proud to endorse: None of the above.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
He should have picked Tina Fey
In the past 14 U.S. presidential elections, the ticket with the shorter name has won 9 times, while the ticket with the longer name has won only four times (once the tickets were equally long). So I'm calling it for Obama/Biden (10 characters) over McCain/Palin (11 characters).
Those nine elections for the shorter ticket were:
1952: Eisenhower/Nixon (15) beat Stevenson/Sparkman (17)
1956: Eisenhower/Nixon (15) beat Stevenson/Kefauver (17)
1968: Nixon/Agnew (10) beat Humphrey/Muskie (14)
1972: Nixon/Agnew (10) beat McGovern/Shriver (14)
1980: Reagan/Bush (10) beat Carter/Mondale (13)
1984: Reagan/Bush (10) beat Mondale/Ferraro (14)
1988: Bush/Quayle (10) beat Dukakis/Bentsen (14)
2000: Bush/Cheney (10) beat Gore/Lieberman (13)
2004: Bush/Cheney (10) beat Kerry/Edwards (12)
The four for the longer ticket were:
1960: Kennedy/Johnson (14) beat Nixon/Lodge (10)
1976: Carter/Mondale (13) beat Ford/Dole (8)
1992: Clinton/Gore (11) beat Bush/Quayle (10)
1996: Clinton/Gore (11) beat Dole/Kemp (8)
The remaining ticket was:
1964: Johnson/Humphrey (15) beat Goldwater/Miller (15)
Those nine elections for the shorter ticket were:
1952: Eisenhower/Nixon (15) beat Stevenson/Sparkman (17)
1956: Eisenhower/Nixon (15) beat Stevenson/Kefauver (17)
1968: Nixon/Agnew (10) beat Humphrey/Muskie (14)
1972: Nixon/Agnew (10) beat McGovern/Shriver (14)
1980: Reagan/Bush (10) beat Carter/Mondale (13)
1984: Reagan/Bush (10) beat Mondale/Ferraro (14)
1988: Bush/Quayle (10) beat Dukakis/Bentsen (14)
2000: Bush/Cheney (10) beat Gore/Lieberman (13)
2004: Bush/Cheney (10) beat Kerry/Edwards (12)
The four for the longer ticket were:
1960: Kennedy/Johnson (14) beat Nixon/Lodge (10)
1976: Carter/Mondale (13) beat Ford/Dole (8)
1992: Clinton/Gore (11) beat Bush/Quayle (10)
1996: Clinton/Gore (11) beat Dole/Kemp (8)
The remaining ticket was:
1964: Johnson/Humphrey (15) beat Goldwater/Miller (15)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)