http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=f...

This is a really interesting article about chess and computers and not because it is about chess.

I think everyone interested in the future of man and computers will find it interesting

As I understand things, the Senate health care bill is more conservative than the House bill.

So, the House doesn’t want to pass the Senate bill because it is too conservative.

The Senate doesn’t want to make changes to the bill to make it more liberal because they think there bill is better and they don’t have the votes to make it more liberal.

So the House is left with a choice. They can either pass the Senate bill which is closer to the House bill than the status quo or they can not pass the Senate bill.

If they do the first then they get a lot closer to what they want than if they let the bill die.

Now, people are worried about reelection.

Can you imagine running against an incumbent who voted for a liberal bill and then got scared and didn’t vote for the slightly more conservative bill?

If you liked either bill then you would be mad at him for not passing either bill.

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," Ronald Reagan, in his first SOTU address.

I believe that if the elections were held this Tuesday that we would end up with something north of 300 Republicans in Congress. I am not sure of the current numbers but it would be a loss of about 120 seats which is twice as bad as 1994.

I am guessing that at least 6 Senate seats and maybe as many as 10 Senate seats would be lost. Obviously, Lieberman would switch sides and probably Ben Nelson would also switch sides. This would give the Republicans control of both Houses.

If things don't turn around by November, and I really don't expect things to get that much better, Obama will go down as the worst President in history.

I know the odds are basically ZERO that a single vote will make a difference today but the race in Massachusetts is worth voting.

Why? Am I being hypocritical?

Probably I am.

The main reason why a vote in a Senate race rarely matters is two-fold. First of all, the odds are against you changing the outcome of your race and, second of all, the odds are that it really doesn't make any difference whether the Democrats have 43 or 44 votes. It does make a difference at 50 and 60. This is one of the times where it makes a difference at 60.

So, normally you have an absurdly small number like 1 in 100,000 (of making a difference in a single race) multiplied by a small number like 1 in 10 being the important number like 60. Now, you know that this race does make the difference so, assuming my numbers are correct (which they aren't) then a vote in Massachusetts today is worth 10 times the vote in a normal Senate election. I also think Massachusetts is fairly close today.

BTW, I thought it was absurd a few days ago when the Democrat was at 90. I think it also absurd when the Democrat was at 17.7%. Too bad I didn't make both bets and take a sure 70 cent profit.

What else can I say???

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Vuleh/www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/1...

Winners and losers

States gaining based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: AZ +1; FL +1; GA +1; NV +1; SC +1; TX +4; UT +1; WA +1.
States losing based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: IL -1; IA -1; LA -1; MA -1; MI -1; MN -1; NJ -1; NY -1; OH -2; PA -1.

What I really like is how close the states are to winning and losing a seat

435: MO with about 10,000 to spare
434: TX with about 40,000 to spare
433: CA with about 120,000 to spare
432: WA with about 30,000 to spare
431: SC with about 20,000 to spare

436: MN would be about 10,000 short
437: OR would be about 20,000 short
438: AZ would be about 50,000 short
439: FL would be about 150,000 short
440: NC would be about 75,000 short

In other words, Michelle Bachmann appears to be the big loser in all of this.

http://www.polidata.org/news.htm#20091223

Silence is Golden ----- duct tape is silver

Sometimes I wonder "Why is that Frisbee getting bigger?"
Then it hits me.

There seems to be serious questions concering the sex of the reindeer on Santa's sleigh. I have seen the TV documentary on Rudolf so I firmly believe that they are not all females.

For further information:

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/reindeer.asp

http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/12703119/longtime-pioneering-dc-s...

I realize that a sports website won't mention his DJ days in New York against Cousin Bruce (don't know how to spell Brucie)

I thought he did a great job when I say him on Washington TV.

I think of him everytime I hear Redbone and "Come get your love"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/depressing-...

I don’t know if you are familiar with the show “Meet me in Saint Louis”. A family is planning to move from Saint Louis to New York and no one is happy about going. I don’t think I am spoiling the ending by saying that they figure out a way to stay.

However, when you realize the song is sung by a big sister to a crying little sister then the original lyrics are really sad.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested.

I wish all the people who hate the BCS would just shut up.

Right now, the two best undefeated teams are going to play each other for the national championship. The other three undefeated teams are going to play in BCS games, including two teams from minor conferences.

So, if you want to have a 4 game playoff then you need eliminate one of the undefeated teams. Actually, I would include Florida and eliminate both TCU and Boise State because they played very weak schedules.

If you want to have an 8 team playoff then you need to include two of the six teas that have two losses. Two questions: how to you figure out which teams should be ranked 7 and 8? Why worry about the regular season when Texas, Florida and Alabama were going to make the playoffs whether they won or lost the last regular game of the season.

So, either we are left with a situation where a team doesn't need to win every week or we have multiple claims for the best team.

The BCS worked perfectly this year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125051867904436961.html

By DONNA CHILDS | A Dow Jones Newswires column
The business news media widely welcomed the "rescue" of CIT Group Inc. when private capital committed $3 billion on July 20. But the benefits of that package favored CIT's management and its "rescue" bondholders. All other stakeholders, including taxpayers and small business clients, were harmed. Thankfully, at the 11th hour, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stepped in to prevent further damage.

Wall Street must be cautious when structuring deals for firms that have benefited from government bailouts.

Bloomberg News/Landov
.CIT's rescue financing was structured by the offer of security from increased collateral protection, with the understanding that "rescue" financiers would in effect have a super priority lien on the company's assets, chiefly the small business credit balances.

One of my complaints about drug costs in the US is that the US subsidizes the rest of the world's drug costs.

I never knew that people actually favored this. I just thought they didn't pay attention to the fact.

Basically, I find a cure for pinky itch and figure that I need to make $200 Million to cover development costs. So I look around the world and think I can sell 20 Million during the life of the patent. So, I decide to sell them for $10 a piece. Simple economics.

Well, Canada and France and a bunch of other countries say they will only pay $6 a pill. Since the production costs of each pill is basically $0 then I figure that selling them at $6 a pill is better than not selling it. Unfortunately, those countries are half the world demand.

So, instead of getting $100 Million from international sales, I will only get $60 million. That means I need $140 million from the US. Unfortunately, I won't get 10 million sales at $14 a piece. I might only get 9 million. Anyway, I finally decide that I will make the most money charging $20 a pill and get only 7 million sales.

I think it will be interesting to everyone but more so to Andrew than to others.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/08/less-house-for-your-money.php

Stole this from the same website

Can you draw a map of all 50 states from memory and make sure that each state on your map touches the proper states?

I am not sure I can. I would have trouble with states like Missouri and maybe a few others.

Anyway, Senator Franken can.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0809/Begich_to_Franken_How_b...

Example 1) The Dow has declined 49% from the top and now has rallied 46%.

Example 2) The Dow has declined 54% from the top and now has rallied 45%.

Not exactly the same percentages and the time frames are a little different.

It only took about 3 months to decline and the rally took about 4 months.

It took 18 months to decline although 45% of the 54% took place in about 6 months and the rally took about 5 months. So, obviously, the market moved more slowly in example 2.

Example 1 1929-1930
Example 2 2008-2009

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/the-view-fr...

In September 2007, I woke up with an unbelievable pain in my back. At first I thought I had just strained it and took some ibuprofen, but as the pain got worse and worse I realized I had a kidney stone. My wife drove me to the hospital and they checked me into the emergency room. I was in so much pain that my wife also handled the paperwork, handing over my insurance card, and filling out forms. After a short wait I got an IV drip of painkiller and lunch tray and was able to settle down. They took an X-ray that revealed two stones. Then they decided to also do a CT Scan. I was doped up and not paying attention - and anyway we had great insurance through our grad school - so I didn't ask whether it was necessary. They wheeled me into the CT Scan machine, took a couple pictures and found out... yep, kidney stone.

After about 3 hours I passed one of the stones, and with a prescription for heavy-duty painkillers in tow, we left the hospital. Everything was fine until I received a bill 3 months later itemized as follows:

X-Ray: $765
CT Scan: $4294

This is the letter I just sent to my two Publican Senators.

Can you please explain to me why you don't support the elimination of Medicare?

Honestly, I don't understand why you are so concerned about a larger government role in MY healthcare when you have no problem with government COMPLETELY controlling the health care of my parents.

I don't have any idea whether ObamaCare will be good or bad and it might make sense for you to support it or oppose it.

However, it seems absurd to do everything you can to stop expansion of government healthcare without also saying that Medicare needs to be eliminated.

Look, I am the CFO of the Energy group of one of the biggest banks in the country. We provide excellent health benefits for our employees. I am bothered as much as anyone about the stupid government forms we need to fill out for everything from healthcare to how wide our doors need to be when we renovate.

I just want people to be consistent and I think you are being a hypocrite. If you want to oppose ObamaCare then come up with good reasons. Don't tell me that you won't touch my parents' Medicare but you are scared of government being involved in my healthcare.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODAzMGMzNWJjMmFlOTE5ODE5Yjg0MTF...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzI2YWMxYzU5ODI1MzcwNjJiMWNjNDB...

It should be fairly easy to figure out where I inserted my own thoughts about the "facts".

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Questions: Americans survive better than Europeans for common cancers. Since Americans have lower life expectancies then Americans either have lower survival rates for other killers or Americans die of common cancers at a significantly different rate than Europeans.

Remember how during the 2008 campaign a lot of people suggested that Obama could prove to be an excellent role model for African-American men who have often been deemed less than responsible as husbands and fathers? Wouldn't it be great if white Evangelical Republican men could come up with a role model like that too?

I'm sweltering down here in Houston and reflecting that it wasn't so long ago that Texas had the looniest governor in the nation. My how the bar has been raised.

This isn't original but it still is true.

1959
I swear, it really is the year everything changed.
Fred Kaplan | books | Thursday, 11:58 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2220751/

I haven't even looked at the article but you can't beat the headline

I am in big trouble. I understand very few of the words.

"If The New York Times ever strikes you as an abstruse glut of antediluvian perorations, if the newspaper’s profligacy of neologisms and shibboleths ever set off apoplectic paroxysms in you, if it all seems a bit recondite, here’s a reason to be sanguine: The Times has great data on the words that send readers in search of a dictionary."

http://ow.ly/eBVr

I got the link from CSMonitor.com

These are the words people click on most.

1 sui generis
2 solipsistic
3 louche
4 laconic
5 saturnine
6 antediluvian
7 epistemological
8 shibboleths
9 penury
10 sumptuary
11 schadenfreude
12 peripatetic
13 abstruse
14 parlous
15 enervating
16 adenoidal
17 feckless
18 solipsism
19 ersatz
20 fealty
21 sanguine
22 sartorial
23 hagiography
24 pandemic
25 hagiographic
26 dauphin
27 antebellum
28 paroxysm
29 risible
30 interlocutor
31 swine
32 apotheosis
33 comity
34 Atreus
35 banal
36 profligacy
37 Sisyphean
38 inchoate
39 apoplectic
40 neologisms
41 bildungsroman
42 peroration
43 fungible
44 recondite
45 bonobo
46 phlogiston
47 contretemps
48 appurtenances
49 glut