Pres. Bush’s speech last night

What a huge mess we’re in… but I found it interesting about the references to the “Global Economy” and that some of the laws being put forth right now would allow the the “Federal” Reserve bank (Not a federal organization, but a privately run organization) more power and control over the U.S. economy and financial institutions (and governments).


One bank to rule them all, one bank to find them, one bank to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!



Let the March of the NeoCons commence! 😉



The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World….


It’s been called the hardest logic puzzle in the world – it did take me a a while to solve it, without having any hints, clues, and never hearing of the puzzle before… It was a lot of fun…. See if you can figure it out (without cheating!). 🙂



Three gods A, B, and C are called, in some order, ‘True’,


‘False’, and ‘Random’. True always speaks truly, False always speaks


falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random


matter. Your task is to determine the identities of A, B, and C by asking


three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The


gods understand English, but will answer all questions in their own language,


in which the words for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are ‘da’ and ‘ja’, in some order.


You do not know which word means which.



Can you solve it?



To my esteemed scategories cohorts….

I want to formally write a complaint that you guys are intentionally stealing points from me when we play scategories.


Take for example; last night. There was a question that asked us to name something that was in the refrigerator that starts with an N. My answer was “nothing”.


You, my esteemed scategories cohorts refused to accept this answer on the case that you felt that nothing was not something.


Try as I might to help you see the error of your ways by asking you to describe nothing without giving it attributes or qualities which are both necessary and sufficient condition for the being of somethingness, you could only describe nothing by describing something – thus proving my point – and yet, not gaining me points.


I therefore post these three forms of Propositional Logic to affirm the truth of my statement that nothing is really something, and demand a recount of my points! 🙂


Disjunctive Syllogism


Either Nothing is Nothing or Nothing is Something
Nothing is not nothing
Therefore Nothing is Something



Hypothetical Syllogism


If I can describe an object called nothing, then the object called nothing has attributes and qualities
If the object called nothing has attributes and qualities then it must exist as something
I can describe the object called nothing therefore it must exist as something


Modus Ponens


If an object called nothing has descriptive qualities then the object must exist
The object called nothing has descriptive qualities
Therefore the object called nothing exists


If an object exists then it can be included in a set called something
The object called nothing exists
Therefore the object called nothing can be included in a set called something


Word of the day

Today’s word of the day are three legal words that are so cool, you’re bound to make people look at you funny when you use them.



The first word is nonfeasance. This word is used to legally describe someone not performing a duty required of them. For example, when my wife doesn’t make me breakfast, she can be charged by me in the court of the home as being guilty of nonfeasance.



The second word is misfeasance. This word is used to legally describe someone not performing a duty to the quality that was expected. For example, when my wife makes breakfast, but it’s burnt to a crisp because she was busy talking on the phone the whole time she was making it, and not really paying attention to what she was doing, she can be charged by me in the court of the home as being guilty of misfeasance.



The third word is malfeasance. This word is used to legally describe someone who participates in purposeful neglect of carrying out ones prescribed duties. For example, if after reading this blog post, my wife just decides to stop feeding me, and I then die of starvation, she could be held, by me, in the court of the home as being guilty of malfeasance.



Of course, if I really starved to death because she wasn’t feeding me, most people would consider me to have gotten what I deserved being such a lazy, helpless person, but, you get the point anyway…



You know, that reminds me, it’s 1:00 o’clock, and I haven’t had lunch yet, when is my wife coming home!


Should requirements of biblical forgiveness extend to an animal?

Ok, it sounds like a simple question: let’s say your animal does something to piss you off.



You make it very obvious to the animal that what it does was wrong (in psych speak you say “I’m a person, and I have feelings, and what you did really hurt me” – or perhaps you just kick it…).



Then, the animal does it again, deliberately, obviously, purposefully, as if to say “I’m an animal and I’m going to do what I like”.



So, if this animal was a person, you’d be obligated to show compassion on it (for at least 490 times [7*70 for all you mathematically oriented people]), before you could wax it.



So, I’m wondering – do we actually have to forgive an animal 490 times too?



I thought about this long and hard (for all of a couple minutes) – and realized that the answer was an obvious “No”.



Therefore: I’m sending my dog to the meat packers!



A headache and a question – if it’s true that it’s false, then it’s false that it’s true too

If Rene Descartes starts with the assumption that it is true that everything is false, then does it not also mean that it is false that it is true that everything is false, and by which, if it is false that it is true that everything is false, then something’s at least are true [it’s true that it’s false that it’s true that it’s false].



Does this mean that he bases his foundation of the Cartesian method of doubt on a something that is not true (the thought that it is true that everything is false, or the thought that it is not true because it is false because everything is false) – then by his own logic because his foundation is built on something false, then his whole method of doubt is also then untrue! But that in itself is a truth.



So if it’s true that it’s false then it’s false that it’s true, which means it’s false that it’s false, which makes it true?



Do you see why people say I give them a headache all the time?



But seriously, isn’t there something self-referentially incoherent about the Cartesian Method of Doubt.



I know in the end Rene believes there is but one thing that is true “Cogito Ergo Sum” – however, how can he know that it’s true, if he starts with the idea that everything is false (which is itself an incoherent statement as it is self-contradictory), and therefore then disqualifies his own argument against his own argument.