Binary Adding On Your Fingers

This is a happy, silly view instead of the dark, depressing ones everyone has come to expect from me. I won't be telling you anything other than something sort of vaguely useful.

Did you know you can add two numbers on your hands? Yes, of course you did. Did you know they can be as big as 31? Well, fine then, for the people who didn't know that, let me explain.

You see, if you treat each of your fingers as a binary digit, each hand can represent 2⁵ different numbers, in other words, 32. Now since 0 is the first number, that means you can represent any number from 0 to 31.

Okay, still lost a few of you, I imagine. Try this. Our most commonly-used system of numbering is decimal, because there are 10 possible numbers in each place. In other words, there can be anything from 0-9 in the ones' place, 0-9 in the tens', and so on. You probably learned that sometime early on in school.

Now instead, we can use binary, which means two possibilities in each place, or in other words, 0-1. Now since in decimal notation, each place is a power of ten, in binary, each place is a power of two. Yes, those of you who knew this already, I am starting really simply. Come back later and read another view about terrorists or something. So in other words, there can be 0-1 in the ones' place, 0-1 in the twos', 0-1 in the fours', and so on.

So for instance, decimal 31 in binary is 11111; that is, 1 in the ones', 1 in the twos', 1 in the fours', 1 in the eights', and 1 in the sixteens'. So 1+2+4+8+16 = 31.

Instead of ones and zeros, we can use fingers. If a finger is up, that's a 1, if it's down, that's a 0. So a fist with no fingers up at all is 0, while a hand with all five fingers (yes, for the purposes of this discussion, a thumb is a finger) up is 31. We'll call the thumb the ones' place and work toward the pinkie. Yes, this means that on the left hand the digits (and they really are digits, aren't they) move one way, and on the right they move the other. But that will come in handy later.

So for instance, 5 would be the thumb and second fingers raised. Be careful not to work much with fours, because that's something of a rude gesture in certain parts. So keep your hands under the table while you do this, and practice in private, both so you don't accidentally insult people and also because you're going to look very strange doing this.

First off, make sure you can make numbers on either hand, 0-31. Heck, if all you need to do is count, you can count a fairly high number by using both hands, 2¹⁰ or 1024, coincidentally the actual number of bytes in a kilobyte or kilobytes in a megabyte or megabytes in a gigabyte(don't let anyone tell you differently) so if you should have to count bytes at some point, you can do it on your fingers if you really want to. That's a neat parlor trick, but sort of pointless.

But being able to make a number on both hands is essential to the actually interesting thing here, which is the ability to add two numbers larger than ten on your fingers. So now, make two numbers, say 5 and 5, on both hands. You should have your thumbs and middle fingers raised (I told you this was going to look odd to passers-by, but you didn't listen, did you). Bring your two hands together. Pick one hand to be the receiver. I'm right-handed, so I tend to go with my right, but it really doesn't matter much. In our example of adding fives, it doesn't matter at all, since both are the same. So we'll go right for me, but left power to all those lefties out there who now want to kill me.

Now, if there is a finger raised on the left hand (the passer, to coin a football term) and not on the right, all you have to do is pass that finger over, drop it on the left, and raise it on the right. But since that's not happening in our current example, we'll leave that. If both hands have a certain finger lowered, keep it there on both. If the passer has a lowered finger and the receiver has a raised one, leave things alone too. But if the passer and receiver both have raised fingers in a particular position, lower both of them and raise the one next in line on the passer. Work from thumb to pinkie.

So in our example, both my thumbs are up, so I lower both of them (I'm carrying the one, in case you wanted a more mathematical analogy) and raise my index finger on my left hand. Then I move to my index fingers, and only my left hand's is raised, so I pass it to my right hand. Then I move to middle fingers, and both are raised, so I carry and raise my left ring finger. Then I pass ring fingers from left to right. And I'm left with my index and ring fingers raised on my right hand. That's 0101 in binary, or 0+2+0+8, or 10, which is what we expect. I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten, or participating in Tom Lehrer's song about new math. But I'm not being childish.

Let's take another example, to illustrate the problem with my instructions thus far. Let's add 7 to 3. That's the first three fingers raised on the left, and the first two on the right. Now starting with the thumb, both are raised, so we lower both and raise the next finger on the left... which is already raised. Crap. Fortunately, we can amend our previous rule. If a rule tells you to raise a finger that is already raised, lower it and raise the next finger instead.

So first we look at the thumbs. Both raised. We lower them and raise the index finger on the left. But it's already raised too, so we lower it and raise the middle finger. Also already raised, so we lower it and raise the ring finger on the left. This one we can raise. Then we move past the index and middle fingers, because they're already lowered on the left, and when we get to the ring finger, we pass it from left to right. Again, 0101, or decimal ten.

So our rules would be:

1. If the passer is lowered, do nothing and move on.
2. If the passer is raised and the receiver is lowered, pass.
3. If both are raised, lower both and raise the next finger on the passer.
4. If a rule tells you to raise a finger that is already raised, lower that finger and raise the next one (this would be a recursive rule, for those of you who are counting, in that if it tells you to raise a finger, it applies to itself just as much as any other rule).

Congratulations, you are adding like a computer. You can now add numbers up to 15 on each hand without breaking a sweat. If you use fingers and toes, you can add much larger numbers, although it probably takes a bit more dexterity.

What happens when you add 16 and 16 together. That's both pinkies. You run out of space on your hands. Computers would call that "overflow," but I prefer to call it, "a perfect opportunity to use your tongue as the final bit." So if you get to your pinkies and a rule is still telling you to raise something, don't be lewd, but just stick out your tongue. You can tell people, "Sorry, I'm adding." This excuse is not guaranteed to work in any circumstance. Or you could just remember that you've tripped the overflow in your head, and when it comes time to do a final tally just add 32 to the result. So to add 31 to 31, that is, all five fingers up on each hand, I lower both thumbs, because they're both raised, then I proceed up the line, lowering all my fingers on the left and sticking out my tongue, which leaves me with all my fingers on my right hand raised except my thumb, and 32 more (in the person of my tongue as the final bit), which is 2+4+8+16+32, or 62, a larger number than you can add with all your fingers, toes, and tongue, in decimal, and you're only using one hand.

Okay, this was all a bit of fluff. However, I can tell you that being able to add large numbers by simple rules without having to write them down is like having an abacus, which is, in essence, what your fingers can be if you use them properly. Instead of rows of 10 beads, you only need rows of 1 bead, which can be easily approximated by fingers. And that's something. Something else is understanding little tidbits of computer knowledge without knowing you've got them. And of course, calling your tongue "the overflow bit" can't be bad.

Michael Reagan Should Be Deported

I'm responding to Michael Reagan generally, of course, but most specifically to his column, "Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds." I'm not, as I've said in the past, in the habit of simply linking to other articles, but I'm mostly just talking about Michael Reagan.

First off, I think that Mr. Reagan needs to read up on the tenets of conservatism if he thinks that the Federal government should be giving money to cities anyway. After all, that's big government. Cities should be on their own, sink or swim, capitalism red in tooth and claw, fiscal responsibility, etc. I don't happen to agree with that platform, but Mr. Reagan certainly should. So yes, I guess according to that, the president should strip all cities of federal funds. What are cities doing getting federal funds anyway. Bad business, that. Makes cities reliant on the government.

Now that the silliness is over. I think that cities should have to abide by laws, and if those laws say that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are to be deported, and there's no legal reason for those laws to be overruled (not that I think there is or there isn't in the particular case that Mr. Reagan brings up) then by all means, deport criminals who are illegal immigrants. They'll most likely get back in because our immigration control is laughable because we're spending all our money on building walls and hunting down illegal aliens instead of spending it on checking immigrants out before we let them in and then - gasp - letting them in. But by all means, cities should have to follow laws.

For that matter, we could probably solve the problems we have with jail overpopulation if we simply deported all criminals, illegal immigrant or not. Commit a crime, go to Mexico, that's the ticket. Because pretty much all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants anyway, right?

What a crock. Michael Reagan and his ilk are stirring up hatred for illegal immigrants by pointing out that they commit crimes. The rest of his points are valid, but to say that the crime never would have been committed and the victims would still be alive, that's presumptuous. Yes, illegal aliens commit crimes. So do legal aliens, natives, and tourists. Everyone from President on down commits crimes.

It's like the people who pointed out, a few years ago, that most violent criminals were men, so we should lock up all men preemptively. Maybe it would lower the crime rate, yes. But so would putting away all people who make below a certain amount, or all teenagers, or all black people. Yes, I said black people. Or all white people. Locking up any large sector of the population would no doubt, by casting the net so wide, round up a few criminals at least. Even if you locked up all 80 year-olds, there's a good chance there'd be a few criminals there, a few crimes they wouldn't be able to commit. All demographics have criminals, and to believe that being "lenient" with illegal immigrants is somehow increasing the crime rate is bogus. What's increasing the crime rate is making immigration so difficult for the vast majority of people who aren't criminals. Only criminals are desperate or rich enough to get in.

Now I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Who the Hell is Michael Reagan anyway? His C.V. lists his father, and a book he's written about, guess what, his father. Yes, Michael Reagan is Ronald Reagan's son. This makes him an expert how?

Not that I'm saying that he shouldn't be allowed to blog. I blog. But his views are certainly given more weight than mine. Why? Because he's Ronald Reagan's son.

For that matter, who is Rush Limbaugh? Who are a lot of these demagogues who tell so many people how and what to think? Where are their credentials? Why shouldn't someone who knows what they're talking about be given the floor? It wouldn't have to be a left-winger. I think there are lots of conservatives who know what they're talking about. They have expertise. I may not agree with them, but at least if they're talking about immigration, they actually served on a committee regarding immigration. They aren't just someone's son, or some accidentally important person.

Know to whom you're listening. You can keep listening, but at least know who they are.

The West

I'm hearing a lot of talk about the West recently. As in, "The West was victorious over Communism," or, "The power of the West has declined with the ascendancy of China." That kind of west. Not the Wild West, nor Adam West. The West, meaning the US and possibly portions of Europe that we like.

It seems we lost the war. It seems we're doomed to become second-class citizens. It seems we're failing. It seems a lot of things.

Guess what? These things are being sold to you by the same people who want you to believe that companies are only still alive if they're growing. And I've talked about growth-vs-death previously. So according to these people, since the West isn't growing as fast as the East (or whoever it is with whom we're supposed to be locked in competition, with apologies to those readers who might come from those places or be those people), we're doomed to fail, crash, burn, and die.

China has the fastest-growing economy in the world. Has for some time now. We should all be shivering in our boots because China is growing faster than we are. The problem with that point of view is that China started with essentially nothing, and for a long time wasn't growing at all, or was shrinking, so it would take a pretty hefty trick to pull off China not growing by leaps and bounds now that it has decided to embrace growth.

To put it another way, imagine for a moment that China's economic profit is 1 dollar. Work with me here, China's been selling international lemonade or something. Whereas the West has a combined economic profit of 1,000 dollars (we sell Ultra-Lemonade 2000 or something).

Now China makes some improvements, puts up bigger lemonade signs, uses cut-rate lemons, high-fructose corn syrup instead of real sugar, and makes 3 dollars the next month. That's a 300% change in profits. Meanwhile, good old reliable West, we keep chugging right along, and our profit for the next month is a cool 1,100 dollars. That's a change of 10% in our profits. So China's economy is growing 290% faster than ours. That's worrisome.

But wait. We made a butt-load more money than China. If China even made the difference in our two profits, the change would be in the order of 10,000%. And they still would only be making 100 dollars a month.

This is an overly simplistic example to illustrate one point: from a small number, a small increase results in a larger percentage growth than from a large number. So China, starting from almost nothing, may be growing quite quickly, but that shouldn't surprise anyone, really.

I'm not saying that China will never catch "the West." I'm not saying that we should sit back, rest on our laurels, and wait for that moment to come. For all I know, it may have already come. China may be making more money than the West right now, and that should motivate us to do our best to make money too.

But more than all that, my point is that just because China is doing well doesn't mean that we "lose." We only "lose" if we stop profiting altogether. And there are many ways to define "profit." I think it's fairly impressive, for instance, that during the Soviet era, the United States and the Soviet Union were both economic powerhouses, but the US did it without the various instances of ugliness that occurred on the dismal side of the Iron Curtain. I'm not saying it was perfect, but if we can maintain a thriving economy while not compromising safety or happiness, that seems like we're "winning" to me, even if we happen not to be making quite as much as the other guy.

Basically, my central thesis boils down to a question: since when does everything have to be a competition? Why can't we be happy that we're doing well, rather than obsessing over the fact that we may not be doing as well as the other guy? Why does "the West" have to "win?" Why should we lament the things that commentators seem bound and determined to have us lament? Aren't there enough other lamentable things in the world without worrying about "winning" some competition between East and West?

Plus, the whole conception of East and West seems pretty racist and paternalistic to me. But that's really beside the point.

Shut Up

There are too many times in this terrific world of ours when well-reasoned discourse falls by the wayside. For instance, there are many times when a logical argument would be helpful instead of fists. Or perhaps simply a listing of grievances, a la Martin Luther, or the many, many self-help books and couples' therapists in the world.

But I'm not here to talk about those times. I'm here to talk about the times when well-reasoned discourse is pointless because the other party is so beyond reason that trying to be logical with them is like trying to explain calculus to a rock. They aren't operating logically. They don't pretend to be. And the mistake there is wasting one's time trying to reason with them, when it's clearly pointless.

In some cases, these people have strong opinions, and those opinions run counter to one's own. There's no point in arguing; just accept that these people hold different opinions and move on. Far too much time is spent trying to argue people out of their opinions. If someone sincerely believes in the existence of God, for instance, there's not much point in arguing with that. You can argue with their reasons (I wouldn't recommend it, personally) or with the conclusions they draw based on this axiomatic belief, but if you simply try to argue someone out of their opinion on the existence or non-existence of God or gods, you are wasting your time.

Then sometimes, people are wrong. I'm not talking about opinion. I'm talking about fact. 2+2=4 kind of facts. This is the type of person you will encounter over and over again on the Internet. They are convinced of the rightness of their opinions and facts, and separating the one from the other is tough, and the facts are wrong, and the opinions are counter to your own. So you try to reason with these people. You try to tell them that they're wrong, that 2+2 does not in fact equal 5. You tell them that Barrack Obama isn't a Muslim, that John McCain does not have an illegitimate black child. You try to tell them that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God hates fags. You try.

And 99% of the time, you fail. You are wasting your time. These people are too stupid to understand that they are wrong. Who knows, maybe you too are among the ranks of these people. How many times have you been wrong and not known it? How many times has someone told you that you were wrong, and you didn't believe them because they happened to hold an opinion counter to yours. Because we allow people's opinions to sway our beliefs on the truth or falsehood of their facts, we all fall prey to this particular human flaw.

But the biggest flaw is trying to argue with these people. Don't bother. Just ignore them. Don't tell them they're wrong. Don't tell them anything. The best policy is to pretend that you've said, "Shut up you moron," to them and ignore them.

So, for the record, people who believe that guns are primarily used to hunt animals: shut up. Ditto to those who believe Barrack Obama is a Muslim or John McCain has an illegitimate black child. Shut up if you think that Communism is still the biggest threat to truth, justice, and the American way. Shut up if you think that entering Iraq has helped American security, or that we found weapons of mass destruction. And you people who believe that the death penalty saves money. That "a well-regulated militia" doesn't involve some element of state control or regulation. That the Bible says God hates fags.

I could go on. Every single day I run into people like this. And I used to feel an intense need, desire, almost an irresistible urge, to tell these people that they are wrong. They wouldn't listen to me anyway. So shut up, you stupid, stupid people. Shut up. God, just shut up.

System Shock

I've probably commented on this before. Some people, no names, no blame (well, actually, a lot of blame, but I'll be nice) seem to feel that it's always too cold. And for some reason, they are the ones who get to control the temperature.

Now I'm sure there are a lot of people out there (okay, not a lot, since no one reads this, but humor me, oh imaginary reading public) who are aghast. "Why, I do think it's always too cold, but I'm never in control of the temperature! This guy is crazy, or possibly just a jerk!"

Okay, so we'll agree to disagree. I just haven't heard any major news stories about how people complain that, during the winter, the heat is always turned up too high. On the other hand, I just heard a major news story about the air conditioners in offices being set too low. So maybe there's a bias in the news media. Or maybe we're all convinced the other guy has it in for us.

See, the thing is, we shouldn't do either. Turn up the heat or turn up the AC, I mean. Environmentally, making sure the thermostat is set reasonably year-round is a good thing. It's also a good thing for our health. And yes, going from a cool environment to a hot one is just as bad as the other way around. No, I will not cite sources. Maybe I'm wrong. Please prove me wrong. But extreme variations in temperature, in whatever direction, are bad for the body. Prove me wrong.

Ah, but all people who like one extreme over the other, we argue in favor of this when it suits our needs. We say, "Oh, but keeping the house too cold in the summer leads to problems," or, "Oh, but keeping the house too warm in the winter leads to problems," but we don't say the same thing in opposition. For instance, you lovers of heat, you people who argue that air conditioners are evil and cost too much and are environmentally bad, what temperature do you set the thermostat during the winter? If you said, "Well... um... 103° on cold days," then you, respectfully, are full of crap. Likewise, if you want the heat turned completely off on all but the coldest days, at what point does the AC become "too cold?" If you said, "When my fingers and toes become frosty," see above.

No, I'm not arguing that we should turn off both heat and air conditioning. I just think we should keep things moderate. I happen to like cold, but I'm willing to turn the heat up a little if, in exchange, we can turn up the air in the summer a little. Or maybe, to be more economically and environmentally sound, we can turn both down. But no one seems to think this way. Because the heat and the AC are not running simultaneously, we only think of our sector of the year, and when your sector comes around, we want you to turn it down. And you feel the same way.

Eh, screw that "middle way" crap. The other guy is wrong, plain and simple. That's the attitude that's given us the world in which we live today. Hooray for self-centered behavior.

However, if my bedroom isn't cool, I can't sleep. And if my workplace is hot, I fall asleep. Explain that. I can't.

YouTube Is More Important

Okay, I may have in the past promised I wasn't going to turn this blog into a clearinghouse for me to say things like, "Look at this news article, isn't it dumb," but frankly, there have been a number of occurrences in the news which I'd like to talk about and which can only be given proper context by a news article. Therefore, examine, if you will, this article. It's all about how a court has ruled that Google must turn over all of its YouTube logs to Viacom as part of their ongoing lawsuit. In particular:

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

Yep, that's right, if you've ever watched a video on YouTube (and who hasn't) your IP address has been stored by Google (this is disturbing enough for some people) and will now be shared with Viacom (and anyone Viacom shares it with). Sure, they're not supposed to do anything with it, and sure, they're claiming they will preserve your privacy, but since people have been able to steal information from other companies, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that, during the transfer, some of this information was stolen by a third party. But that's not really what I'm worried about. You can probably steal my IP address right now if you're so inclined. I'm more worried about what is said later on in the story.

The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.

But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

Really? Yes, really. Apparently, the code that makes up YouTube, code which probably changes all the time and would hardly be impossible to duplicate, code which would be protected in the same way that your privacy is being protected, and would legally be unable to be used by Viacom for anything other than their lawsuit, is more valuable and important to the court than your privacy. Ponder that for a while.

I'm not a privacy nut. I don't keep my identity a closely-guarded secret, accessible only to myself and the guy who hoards my money as gold ingots at the center of the Earth. I'm probably just as ripe for identity theft as the rest of us (not that they'd get much out of my identity). And I don't really worry that Viacom, or indeed anyone else, has seen my IP address and viewing habits on YouTube (it would probably make for some interesting reading, since my viewing habits on YouTube consist of some pretty eclectic material, and no I'm not talking about pornography). But the fact that the court views the privacy of millions of people as less important that the privacy of a company just adds fuel to the argument that the law treats companies unfairly (well, in this case).

Add to it that we have laws saying that companies are protected from lawsuits because they broke the law in a way favored by the government, or companies are only punished for being monopolies if someone feels like it, or the myriad other ways I could mention, and you've got a case. Which I do. Think about it. That's all I ever really ask.

Stressful

Hello, and welcome to the wacky cavalcade of fun we call The Military Happy Fun-Time Hour!

You don't really need to read the story, but for the sake of transparency... here it is. Relevant text, in this case just to showcase my favorite quote of the day, is included below. The rest of the article says about what you'd expect.

America's top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces.

Really? No kidding? I mean, that goes against all conventional military logic! How can it be!

Okay, sarcasm done. For those of you not in the know, two-front wars are bad business. They're why Germany lost World War II (well, one of the reasons was that they were led by a crazed, spittle-emitting dictator, but the whole two-front thing sort of naturally follows from that). They're why we currently are having something of a soldier-retention problem. They're bad news for armies.

That's largely because the number two is even, and armies don't like even numbers. Now the number three, that's odd, which means that armies like them and will approach them and eat food pellets out of their hands. Check out the serial numbers on all soldier's dog tags: all odd. Or the designations of ships: odd. Or the number of towers blown up on September 11th: even. Need I say more?

Okay, sarcasm again. The willful addition of a third front is so militarily irresponsible as to beggar description. Of course a third front in the Middle East will be "stressful." Hell, a second front in the Middle East was pretty stressful. And what exactly does "stressful" mean, anyway? I'm willing to bet they're not talking about the fact that there would be a certain amount of stress involved for the logistics personnel who have to ship all the troops to Iran. I'm pretty sure they mean the kind of stress which causes armies to lose wars.

What a marvel of understatement. This is not an argument against going to war with Iran. It's an argument against going to war with three different locations at once. It's an argument that is about as old as warfare. It's not even an argument, really, in the same way that saying, "Diving into molten lava will burn you," isn't really an argument against diving into molten lava. It's a fact. Three fronts: bad. Molten lava: bad. If you can't see that, then you have no business conducting a war.

Incidentally, I know that technically, one could argue that Germany was actually fighting a three-front war, what with Italy. In any case, Hitler actively chose two fronts, which was just poor strategy any way you slice it.

What Is "Questioning?"

Hooray for Wesley Clark, who has the cojones to ask exactly how being shot down as a fighter pilot gives one qualifications for being a President.

Okay, now that I've said that, I also want to ask what the hell he was thinking saying that, because it's certainly not politic. I mean, if he hadn't been a general, he would have been immolated by the combined anger of all the military people in the world. As it is, he's just being hung out to dry. So no, I don't think it was the smartest thing in the world to do. It's a perfectly valid point, but maybe not intelligent to make it.

But is it really "questioning" John McCain's record of service to ask whether or not it gives him the qualifications to be Commander in Chief? That's like asking if your qualifications as a President are improved by your being a mother of three. No one is questioning that you are in fact a mother of three, just questioning whether or not that accepted fact (i.e. John McCain served in such and such a capacity) is necessarily a qualification for being President.

For the record, I think qualifications for being President are like the skills you list on your resume: anything can be a qualification to be President if you spin it the right way. For instance, one could argue that the aforementioned hypothetical mother of three has excellent qualifications to be President because she not only knows what it's like to be a mother (thus representing mothers everywhere) but also because as a mother of three, she's used to multitasking, dealing with petulant children (or those who act like them), and budgeting. I could go on, but you get the point.

So the appropriate response for John McCain to make is that yes, his service in the military does in fact give him excellent qualifications to be President, for reasons X, Y, and possibly Z.

Ah, but that would require reasoned discourse and logical argument, and thus is judged to pass directly over the heads of the target audience (i.e. the morons who vote). So instead, John McCain and everyone else says that Wesley Clark is questioning John McCain's record of service.

Now I don't know. Maybe Clark said some other things which did in fact question the facts of the case (John McCain served in the military, was shot down, was a prisoner of war, etc.). He would be a fool to question whether or not these facts are true, but hey, people questioned John Kerry's record of service. At that point, no one said anything like, "How dare you question his record," I guess because they actually were questioning his record, and not asking why his record made him qualified. If they had instead wondered why we're so obsessed with the idea of war heroes as Presidents, I suppose the media and everyone else would have reported that as "questioning Kerry's record" and been aghast.

And then there are the pundits who claim that Clark's comments are tantamount to talking about Obama's race. Guess what, geniuses. The only way that works is if someone questions whether Barrack Obama is lying about his background, that he is in fact a white woman in blackface, and has been leading us on all these years. That's "questioning." If, on the other hand, someone (it would probably have to be a black person, in the same way that only a military man could get away with the comments Clark made about McCain's qualifications) asked exactly how being a black man made Barrack Obama qualified to be President, pretty much everyone would react the same way, only they'd be wrong to do so. It's not racist to ask how someone's race qualifies them for something.

And then, Barrack Obama would go on television and call for his opponent to stop questioning his race, and leave the whole actual issue in the dust. And that issue is: what exactly do we as voters regard as qualifications for the Presidency? Being black? White? Christian? Muslim? A war hero? A pacifist (yeah, right)? A Senator (don't answer too quickly; a shockingly small number of Senators have managed to parlay that particular qualification into election)? A Governor? A beltway insider? A beltway outsider (that's pretty much as far out as we get, most times)? Just what makes one qualified to be President.

If John McCain had to answer the question of how his war service (which is all true, and I'm in no way questioning it) qualifies him to be President, maybe he'd say something useful. And maybe Barrack Obama would answer too, and tell us why being black has made him qualified to be President. And then maybe they could give us some other qualifications they happen to possess as well, and tell us why those qualifications work.

But it's politics, which means that what we would doubtless get nothing but empty soundbites and garbage. Which is why I say again, what was Clark thinking? He had to know he would be misrepresented (I won't say misinterpreted, because no one is interpreting; they're saying he said something different from what he actually said). What was he thinking?

So think about it: if we can't mention something without "questioning" it, how exactly can we talk about much of anything?