Why we had to invade Iraq
I include this because it is so chock full of links.
Via The Blogging Ceaser, The Fourth Rail details why we had to go after Saddam.
Saddam had to go. 'Unilateral' war was the only way. We are succeeding in Iraq. He adds historical perspective.
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 10:57 PM CT [link]
Binary Math Trick
Prompted by Think Again! and a couple of eight year olds: my favorite math trick.
It involves a number of tables; when I first saw it, each table was on a separate card. One set of tables:
| | | | | |
1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 27 | 29 | 31 |
|
2 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 31 |
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|
|
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| |
To work the trick, the 'mark' is to pick a number from 1 to 31. Then, they say which tables contain that number. ("Is it on this table?"
Yes. "Is it on this table?"
No. "Is it on this table?"
Yes. "Is it on this table?"
Yes. "Is it on this table?"
No.) After finishing, the 'Magician' confidently announces the number. (In the above example, if the mark's number was on the tables which contained the numbers 1, 4, and 8 but not on the tables which contain 2 and 16, the mark's number would be 13.)
The key to understanding the trick is binary, or base-2 math. Base-10 math is based on our hands. When we write 11. we mean 10, the number of fingers we have, plus 1. "123" is base-10 is 1*10*10 + 2*10 + 3.
Binary was developed by people with two fingers. In binary, when we write "11", we mean 2 + 1. If we were to write "123", we would mean 1*2*2 + 2*2 + 3 or 7.
We wouldn't write 123 in binary though. When we add 1 to the largest digit in base 10, 9, we reset the 9 to 0 and carry the one to the next column (9+1=10). Likewise, when we add 1 to the largest digit in base 2, 1, we reset the 1 to 0 and carry the one to the next column (1+1=10). Counting from one to sixteen in binary: 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 10000. If we were to count to 123 in binary, by the time we got done carrying the ones, we'd have 1111011.
Anyway, knowing how binary works lets us describe the numbers on the individual cards. The first card can be described as XXXX1. That is, all the numbers on the first card can be expressed as five digit binary numbers. If number appears on the first card, the last digit of the number expressed in binary is 1 (it is an odd number). As it happens,
all odd numbers appear on the first card.
The second card can be described as XXX1X; the third card, XX1XX; the fourth card, X1XXX; and the fifth card as 1XXXX.
So when the 'magician' asked the 'mark' if the number was on cards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; the magician was really asking the mark to express the number in binary. In the above example, "YNYYN" read backwards becomes "NYYNY"; replacing yesses and noes with ones and zeroes, we get 01101, the binary representation of 13.
When I teach this trick to 8 year olds, I first make up some cards. Then I do the trick. Then I teach them the trick. I tell them to keep a running total of the numbers in the upper left hand corners of the cards which have a 'mark's particular number. Or, in the above example, "Is your number here?" "Yes" Upper Left:1. Running total: 1. "Is your number here?" "No" Running total: 1. "Is your number here?" "Yes" Upper Left:4. Running total: 5. "Is your number here?" "Yes" Upper Left:8. Running total: 13. "Is your number here?" "No" Final answer: 13.
I like this trick for kids for three reasons. First, they like it; they can mystify their friends. Second, it gets them doing math. Third, it plants an 'aha' moment; at some point in the future, they will come to understand binary math and say "aha".
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 08:17 PM CT [
link]
Close Election
The Blogging Ceaser has posted an eye-popping (good thing I can touch type) update to his Election Projection page. Where Senator Kerry had been substantially ahead by as much as 337-201 electoral votes, he now shows an even race. What really caught my eye: Florida to Bush by a 0.01% margin.
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 06:06 PM CT [link]
President Clinton Loses his Cool
Via Drudge, President Clinton lost his cool:
[...]
The President initially responds to [BBC interviewer David] Dimbleby's questions by launching a general attack on media intrusion. When the broadcaster persists with the question of whether the politician was truly penitent, Clinton directs his anger towards Dimbleby.
The atmosphere, which was initially warm, then turns decidedly chilly. One BBC executive who has seen the interview, which took place in a New York hotel last Wednesday, said: "He is visibly angry with Dimbleby's line of questioning and some of that anger gets directed at Dimbleby himself. As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained.
"It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President's character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events. Dimbleby manages to remain calm and order is eventually restored."
First the New York Times pans his book
Pretentious Blather. Then the BBC casts doubt on his honesty. Is this the beginning of some sort of unravelling?
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 05:55 PM CT [
link]
Biden Politics
What's wrong with politics: this recent roll call vote "To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reduction in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers."
Either we should alter the tax structure or we should not. Either we should support the troops or we should not. But this amendment is just a political ploy to let Democrats claim they supported the troops when Republicans did not.
Except, of course, for Senator Kerry. He did not vote.
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 05:34 PM CT [link]
European Elections unspun
Via Natalie Solent, the Chicago Boyz (no, they don't make pitchforks with their hands) reprint an analysis from Jim Bennett:
The entirely predictable but still breathtakingly brazen spin of the US liberal media on the British European elections continues to demonstrate the need for alternative channels of information, particularly the blogosphere.
I just heard NPR describe the election results as "British voters punishing Blair over Iraq", echoing the Washington Post and NY Times. This has become the official line. Any sane editor would choose to lead with a headline grounded in actual factual analysis, such as:
"Three Pro-War British parties take 67% of vote, push anti-war party to fourth place"; or
"New anti-EU party displaces Liberal Democrats as Britain's Third Party"; or
"British Voters Back War but Punish Blair over Europe"; or
"BBC Host Fired for Political Incorrectness Leads Europe Rebels to Victory"; or
"Liberal Democrats Play Anti-War Card with Meager Results; or
"Britain: Only European Country with Pro-War Government *and* opposition party, now sees rise of third pro-war party, eclipsing antiwar party." or
"Euroskeptic Parties Take Majority of Vote for First Time."
All of these are factually true and would seem interesting angles purely from a journalistic point of view. Did we see any of them? Ha!
The really interesting thing about this election was [....]
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 05:27 PM CT [
link]
Poker, per Dave Barry
Via Wil Wheaton, of all places, Dave Barry writes about poker:
All of these games are essentially the same: A person (or, in poker slang, "dealer") gives you some cards ("cards"), which you look at in a furtive manner ("sneaking a gander") to see if you have a good hand ("bling bling") after which you bet ("kiss the eel") by placing money ("cheese") into the pot ("marijuana"). This goes on until somebody ("not you") wins, at which point the losers express heartfelt congratulations in colorful slang.
If I ever invote you over for a game of poker, it would be proper of you to ask, "do I
look like a charity case?"
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 05:03 PM CT [
link]
Clinton's Book Panned
Via Michelle Malkin, New York Times (registration required) reviewer Michiko Kakutani pans President Clinton's new memior, which I would Google Bomb as Pretentious Blather.
The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.
In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 04:50 PM CT [
link]
Muslim Brotherhood
Via a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000060.htm">Michelle Malkin, the Muslim Borotherhood is scary:
Which, if you think about it, is a pretty brilliant strategy: Create terrorist groups that use violence to advance your goals, distance yourself from those groups, present yourself as the "reasonable" alternative, and enjoy the accolades of the very people you're trying to destroy.
Not bad for day's work. Or even several decades.
Alan on 06.20.04 @ 04:42 PM CT [
link]