Alchemy Today - Latest Comments

Re: Is the devil in the digits?

alchemytoday — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:21:55 -0000

What 'cause' do you think I'm taking up? I can reproduce their numbers as well (except for one error which they've recognized).

The two probabilities are entirely independent in the case where the last two digits are random. In the definition used here, any last digit has 7 out of 10 unique, non-adjacent digits (everything that's not a repeated digit or an adjacent digit, with 0 being adjacent to both 9 and 1). No matter what the last digit, a random second-to-last digit will have a 70% chance of being non-adjacent. Beber and Scacco agree with this in the annotated version of their article.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

alchemytoday — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:18:13 -0000

"Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"

And besides, it's ridiculous. Bush did the same thing. Obama just did the same thing again on his Middle East trip, I believe. Adams' decision to carry out the three reverences was a decision to submit himself to the ceremony of a monarch that he'd engaged in bloody rebellion against (with a lot of internal conflict), and Presidents since then have engaged in the meaningless ceremony that satisfies monarchs since the beginning, cf participation in military parades (memorably, sword dances in Bush's case) that only serve to appease a monarch with a display of power.

As for the Japan example, people huffed and puffed when Clinton bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Don't kid yourself that the response would've been any different had Obama bowed to the monarch of a country in which bowing is a common gesture.

It's incredibly petty to imagine that bowing to someone objectively takes away any real leverage we might have with them.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

Dirt Lawyer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:37:41 -0000

There seems to be a lot of baseless conjecture on this topic. I appreciate your comments, but the protocol that applies to the President is different than that which applies to U.S. diplomatic personnel and ordinary American citizens.

The President is the head of state of a Republic, and therefore does not offer deferential courtesies to monarchs and other foreign government officers which are not reciprocated. Bowing would be appropriate if the foreign head of state (or ambassador) does likewise, as for example, the Japanese do. Cheek kissing is likewise appropriate if reciprocated, as the French and Russians do. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the President to render the "three reverences" to a monarch (or a foreign head of state) as portrayed in the John Adams miniseries. In the show, Adams was the ambassador to the court of King George III following the Revolution, and would not be elected President for another 11 years.

The basic principal of the governing protocol is that the U.S. President, as the head of state, deals with monarchs and other foreign heads of state as equals, not as a subject or supplicant.

Re: Is the devil in the digits?

Michael Wales — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:00:59 -0000

Wow. You can't do math. Whatever you think of the election or these students, attacking their argument with such blithe ignorance does more to hurt your apparent 'cause' than convince your readers. The summary you critique is a remarkably simplified report of accurate statistical analysis of the election. I haven't read the math, nor even know if it's been published, but I can reproduce their results with the same numbers. Your ignorance of their calculations is a pitiful attempt to discredit logical argument while remaining blissfully unaware of your own shortcomings. And no, the first two probabilities are not multiplied. They are not independent.

Re: Question

noname — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:09:23 -0000

What?

Re: One last thing on bowgate

JOHN — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:25:25 -0000

The President stooped and shook hands with the guy. Sign of respect. Bush held hands with the guy amongst the flowers for a nice stroll. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/eveni...

Re: Obama’s Bow Is Bush’s Bow?

alchemytoday — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0000

They aren't precisely the same. One was a greeting and the other was part of a ceremony in which the awardee stand rigidly, hands at his sides, before bending forward to accept an award (implicitly recognizing the judgment of the person giving the award and showing gratitude in accepting it), and adoringly shaking hands and kissing the king. Kissing not as a greeting, but as a display of fealty that's part of the ceremony. Despite that, unless Bush whispered in King Abdullah's ear that we're going to arm Saudi Arabia w/ nuclear weapons at the same time, I really don't give a damn. Both Obama's bow (and of course he bowed) and Bush's ceremony mean precisely zero; I suppose they both help firm up King Abdullah's reputation in Saudi Arabia to some extent, but that effect is marginal.

As far as not acknowledging the facts goes, I guess the folks I saw do this over the past two weeks are liberals: say that lowering taxes raises revenues (always), that Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are intelligent (and that Glenn Beck makes some good points), that people will choose to pay higher taxes given two options, that there are two sides to the evolution "debate", that even if global warming is as bad as predicted, the consequences that will last over millennia are lower than the cost of reducing emissions over the next century, that the stock market inevitably declines when it appears that the Democrats will get their way, that Banquo's Ghosts is a real page-turner, that it's remotely possible that a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment could ever be ratified, that Obama will likely abolish the dollar in lieu of a global currency, and that he will also create reeducation camps for our youth, that Norm Coleman has any possible recourse in either the MN or US Supreme Courts, that ACORN is something to fear, that George Soros singlehandedly brought down the economy for his own benefit, that a secretive liberal cabal utilizes and e-mail list to set the national liberal agenda... these are all positions taken by mainstream Republicans in Congress, on broadcast television and radio, and in the pages of the journals of the conservative intelligentsia.

But yes, you're right that it's a bit of denial to claim that Obama didn't bow, or that Bush did precisely the same as Obama. However, I said "bowing to Abdullah as he's given a medal," which is entirely accurate.

Re: Obama’s Bow Is Bush’s Bow?

Steve — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:34:41 -0000

Yes! Because bowing your head to accept a medal is COMPLETELY different from an almost horizontal, bent at the waist bow! That you see the two as the same really shows your flawed thinking and perceptions. But that's the problem with all liberals: they refuse to acknowledge the facts before them and instead resort to subterfuge, name-calling, fabrication, and many other tactics that are, quite frankly, embarrassing to witness.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

alchemytoday — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:33:59 -0000

CNN probably took down the video when they saw people checking it out... was part of a stock video ordering site that they have that I figured out how to directly link to.

Edit: Link still works for me, but wouldn't be surprised if it goes down.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

BS — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:11:30 -0000

your link on Bush bowing, kissing, and receiving a medal from King Abdullah doesn't work

Re: One last thing on bowgate

alchemytoday — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:48:16 -0000

Um, I was responding to, "Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"

Now, if you're complaining that Obama breached diplomatic protocol. That's fine. It's somewhat different to think that, as many have, Obama is somehow hinting at future deference to a major figure in Islam (particularly, many have said this is more evidence that he's a secret Muslim).

I don't think that bowing is part of an Ambassador's job, by the way. He's not a subject, and, beyond that, it's not required to subject yourself to *all* local customs.

@Ben I agree that the reset button thing was one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy ever conceived. It blows my mind that someone employed by Clinton/Obama came up with that idea, and that it was given the green light at several other points without someone saying something about the obvious reference there.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

Rocks — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:02:04 -0000

I don't really get the relevance here. The point was Presidents don't bow. Bush is clearly not bowing but receiving a medal and John Adams was Ambassador at the time. Who ever said the Ambassador shouldn't bow? Not only should he bow it is part of his job. He should do it to any head of state, not just royalty.

Re: The first time one of these has turned out well…

Mattie — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:38:40 -0000

Nice! Looks like you're actually running

Re: One last thing on bowgate

Ben — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:06:03 -0000

Oh, please. In 1785 the balance of power was one republic clinging to life vs. every major power ruled by a king or queen. Through a great deal of American blood, we have made royalty obsolete, and it dishonors the memory of the fallen to forget what they fought for. The question isn't whether 44 screwed up, but why.

This and other gaffes (like that idiotic reset button) are really symptomatic of the larger incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Even the fact that he's essentially just repeating 43's pandering shows it: 44 wants to break with 43's foreign policy, but is so uninterested in devising his own coherent policy that he goes to unprecedented (and unpresidential) lengths to deride 43's policies while essentially leaving them unchanged!

And the result of this incoherence is that our allies are losing confidence in us and our enemies are drawing up plans. 44 seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass because there are bigger problems in the world than a recession.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

alchemytoday — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:09:35 -0000

First, Obama didn't "present himself as a subject" of anybody. Second, look at the post I was responding to -- "Americans don't bow to anybody" -- there's nothing specious about my example. Adams wasn't a subject of Britain, either. Perhaps Obama violated some State Dept protocol; who cares? He's not sacrificing American sovereignty, though, and the newly discovered concern for American attitudes towards the Saudis are hilarious. I don't recall much of a peep in January 2008 when Bush promised billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia in exchange for vague assurances of looking the other way if we attacked Iran, and an opportunity to beg for increased oil exports. Somewhat more substantive than bowing.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

steve h — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:10:47 -0000

Your example of Adams' deference to King George III is specious. Adams was on a diplomatic mission as a minister; today he might be called an envoy or ambassador. This is entirely different than the president presenting himself as a subject of the foreign king, as did Obama with his gesture.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

alchemytoday — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:22:30 -0000

When was the non-bowing tradition established? It's really hilarious that "conservatives" are convinced that empty gestures like this are something to be concerned about. It's not at all different from their various complaints about the left's, well, kowtowing to political correctness.

Re: One last thing on bowgate

N. O'Brain — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0000

Um, dude, the President is not bowing, he's leaning over to recieve a medal.

Try looking at what you're looking at.

As to John Adams, well, the non-bowing tradition hadn't been established yet, so I forgive him.

Re: Obama’s Bow Is Bush’s Bow?

Vermont_Neighbor — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:23:07 -0000

Obama's bow was totally ignored by the main scream media. Remember, they crow when this guy does the most ordinary, mundane thing and cover when he fouls up the joint. Their cheerleading can't be denied.

Along with the submissive bow is that $900 Million going to Gaza and Hamas. You question his priorities? Still?

Re: Long odds

alchemytoday — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:51:41 -0000

I do use public transit when possible, but don't use the city buses because I can't get anywhere I need to go on a single bus. Baltimore does have fairly reliable and uncrowded public transit... just doesn't go in the direction I need it to directly.

As far as your suggestion goes, I'd be totally for it. Transportation on demand is a no-brainer for urban areas. Bike rental kiosks being the one thing that's becoming more widely available.

Baltimore's not a particularly dense city, so a lot of transit options that make sense elsewhere don't really begin to tackle our problems and aren't affordable with small tax base. In a utopia we'd just raze about half of everything within the city limits and get everyone closer to downtown, but pesky legal, moral, and social issues get in the way.

Re: Long odds

noname — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:22:51 -0000

The sad thing is there are five bus stops in that picture, but I bet no one (who has a choice) uses them because they are slow and inconvenient. Down with cars and pitiful public transit--up with Personal Rapid Transit!

Re: Obama’s Bow Is Bush’s Bow?

alchemytoday — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:48:18 -0000

Because accepting a medal from a king as you bow your head in a ceremony is somehow different from ceremonially bowing when you meet him? Either way, you're showing deference to a monarch. Unless you're worried that Obama is really revealing his secret allegiance in which case you're nuts.

If you could make an argument as to how Obama's bow is less ridiculous than Bush's Saudi sword dance, have at it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bC_QA2HOo

Re: Obama’s Bow Is Bush’s Bow?

Doubting Thomas — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:24:13 -0000

Gee. He's looking down at a medal that the king gave him. Oh the horror, oh the indignity and shame of it all. Certainly this is the moral equivalent of Obama bowing low to the king!

Re: How will the GOP explain voting against one of the biggest middle-class tax cuts in history?

noname — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:31:39 -0000

They will defend themselves by claiming that the stimulus tax cuts and spending will have to be paid for with higher taxes in the future, while somehow omitting that this also applied to the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war spending.

Re: McCain lies about cap-and-trade on Meet the Press

noname — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:29:07 -0000

"They’ve earmarked $634 billion for cap and trade; by the way, a betrayal of everything I’ve ever believed in about cap and trade, which I’m a supporter of."

Wow. Republican "logic" impresses me more and more every day.