The Writer's Poke

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." -- Albert Einstein Dr. Einstein turns 129 today. Be sure to wish him a happy birthday!

In 1992, Bill Clinton was 46. Barack Obama is currently 46. George H.W. Bush was 64 when he became president. Hillary turns 61 this year. Okay, so what's the point? Most presidental ranking opinion polls place Bush Sr. and Clinton in the middle of the pack (not great, not horrible -- just average) --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents How can that be? Bush Sr. had so much more "experience." And check this out: Theodore Roosevelt is generally ranked as one of the top 5 best presidents. TR was just 42 years old when he became president, and I believe he had only 3 years of public service before assuming the role! The bottom line: there's a reason the constitution says you only need to be 35 to be president. Good judgement has much more value than mere experience (experience just means you're older, really, anyway). And "experience" isn't a synonym for wisdom. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080313/us_time/cl...

Can opportunity be a curse? In more conventional terms, what I'm describing is generally known as "opportunity cost." That is, one opportunity elements another. To use a silly example, if you spend all of your time playing basketball, then you won't have time to play baseball. In other words, the opportunity to play basketball all of the time eliminates the opportunity to play baseball. Makes sense right? As a result, you get really good at basketball, but your skills in baseball never improve... And, sometimes people will say, "I'm tired of basketball; I want to play baseball," but they've been playing basketball too long. Think about the Michael Jordan experiment, for example. Or, think about when Brock Lesnar tried to make the jump from professional wrestling to the NFL. It just doesn't work out because they're going up against people that used the opportunity to spend all of their time playing baseball, or football, etc. That also suggest...

The 69 Eyes have a new live album out, but you can't find it in the United States. So, I ordered it straight from Finland, placing the order on Feb. 28 and receiving "Hollywood Kills" on March 5. What an absolutely brilliant album. If you've never heard The 69 Eyes, you don't know what you're missing. The lead singer is a cross between Elvis, Type O Negative, and the Crash Test Dummies. Somehow, it works for him. I discovered this group about 5 years ago now, and as my wife can verify, hardly a day goes by that I don't listen to them. Here's the direct link to Finland for anyone interested in buying the album. http://www.recordshopx.com/artist/69_eyes/Hollywood_Kills_-_Live_At_The_Whisky_A_Go_Go/27343/ Yeah, I'm sure it will be released in the United States eventually, but why wait? If you just want to hear a song from them, scroll to the bottom of my blog. I have a playlist there with one of their hits. http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/

My "how much is the Iraq war costing us?" clicker has now gone over $500 billion. The National Priorities Project website http://www.nationalpriorities.org/ is actually pretty interesting. Check it out if you have a chance. It allows you to break costs down by state and community, too. I just did this for the community of Rochester, Minnesota. Apparently Rochester's portion of the war is $218 million. Or, maybe you don't care about the cost of the Iraq war. Here's some other interesting stats for Rochester. Each year, Rochester spends $7.4 million on nuclear weapons (that would make my investment in nuclear weapons about $74 annually. How much is your investment?) What could Rochester do with $7.4 million? 1,390 People with Health Care OR 5,546 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR 106 Public Safety Officers OR 76 Music and Arts Teachers OR 527 Scholarships for University Students OR 31 Affordable Housing Units OR 1,602 Children with Health Care OR 701 Head Start ...

So now Hillary is teasing the idea that she would select Barack to be her running mate. Let's see. He's won 28 contests, and she's won 17 (and I think that number includes Michigan and Florida, which really don't count). He leads in delegates and the popular vote. How magnanimous of Hillary to "offer" the number two position to Barack . How nice . Now, some pundits are calling Barack "arrogant" to dismiss the offer. Arrogant? Um, he is leading the race, and he's running for president. Arrogant? Doesn't it seem more arrogant for the runner-up to suggest that she would offer the "runner-up" slot to the leader? And, excuse me for stating the obvious, but if Barack doesn't have enough experience, and if he's not ready to lead from "day one" like Hillary, then why would she put him in the position that's next in line to the presidency ? Question: How full of crap is Hillary anyway?