...with an outraged voice, "I'm not dead yet!" I'm linking to Glenn's post regarding the possible, apparent, short-termed, still breathing demise of the immigration bill because he wittily uses a movie quote, obviously a "skill" I respect.
Update: Ace links to this post which I think nicely sums up some of the behind the scenes wrangling that (hopefully) killed this bill. Just go to AoSHQ, he's posting on this like a...like someone who's posting a lot!
If anyone knows how to fix that mess in the sidebar, please let me know. I did a lot of fiddling around last night with the template, and the best result I got was being able to see the entire Fred! widget, but unfortunately having it overlap onto the posts. Help!
Bumped: Just in case-as if!
Here goes nothing (context):
Prof. Reynolds,
This is a layman's response to John Derbyshire's comment regarding Romney's use of the phrase "a null set." For full disclosure, I am a mechanical engineer, and not a mathematician (or a lawyer). I was intrigued by your post, and decided to dig deeper. Per wikipedia's entry on null set, "in mathematics, a null set is a set that is negligible in some sense." (Wiki's emphasis). It goes on to say that in set theory there is only one empty (null) set, whereas in measure theory, any set of measure 0 is a null set.
By my understanding, iff (heh) Mitt Romney was discussing probability or statistics, than he was correct in his usage of "a null set." However, if Gov. Romney was thinking in purely mathematical terms, then Mr. Derbyshire's critique is correct. However, by my reading of NRO's excerpt of the debate, Gov. Romney was using "a null set" as a synonym for non sequitur. (Which can be either of the logical or absurd flavor). Since (roughly) "it doesn't follow" is not equal to "empty/none/zero/etc.," then it is my opinion that "a null set" is not a synonym for non sequitur, and therefore the entire subject is moot.
However, the real question should be Gov. Romney's usage of the phrase "non sequitur." It may be a valid usage if Gov. Romney considered the question a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument as opposed to a modus tollens argument. This is most certainly the case, since one additional reason someone might make the conclusion that invading Iraq was a mistake is because we didn't invade Iran first. Or maybe I'm trying to read too much into it. And yes, this is "Instalanche Bait".
Respectfully, Thomas Paine
Cross-posted at my blog, 21st Century Common Sense. :)
On this day, 63 years ago, almost three million troops crossed the English Channel as part of the largest armada of naval vessels this world has ever seen. The brave warriors of the Greatest Generation went ashore in Normandy to wrest Europe from the iron grip of the Nazis. The best film treatment of these events is undoubtedly Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The opening scene of the storming of the beach still gives me chills whenever I watch it. Thanks to the sacrifice of the brave Allied soldiers, a toehold was established on Continental Europe allowing for the ultimate defeat of the evil Third Reich.
Update: Even better post by Slublog over at Ace's, and Bryan at Hot Air has this post (with pictures).
40 Years ago today, the Middle East's only democratic nation was surrounded on all sides by the forces of darkness. What happened? The Armies of Evil got their collective asses handed to them by a smaller force. The Israeli Air Force was out-numbered 4 to 1 in numbers of aircraft, and the combined Arab force was at least 20% larger in numbers of soldiers. Despite this, Israel inflicted a 27 to 1 kill ratio (in their favor), destroyed 400+ enemy aircraft, captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and more. Despite this, they decide to try again. (h/t LGF).
This article from yahoo news wins for best closing sentence.
The Whore of Babylon checks in to the Grey Bar Hotel.
Just when you thought he had pushed the stupidity envelope to its limit, Mike Tyson continues to amaze.
Vermont wants to secede from the Union. My opinion, let them.
"Cold Cash" Jefferson indicted. Possible maximum prison-term? 235 years!
