The Iron Yuppie

One of the things my friends and I were so disturbed about when it comes to this election is a small extension of the discussion I had brought up recently. This election is already settled for 90% of the people who probably come down about 50-50 exactly on either side. This, in and of itself, is a fascinating aspect… it is fine to have dramatic differences in philosophies, but it is especially fascinating that we’re so equally divided. I would say that this results from countless years of politicians doing just enough to get elected and no more. “Just enough” being satisfying 51% of the people. But that does not seem like it’s enough. If you asked people on a controversial issue what they thought (such as the war on Iraq), people actually WOULD BE divided 50-50. I wonder if it’s a sales and marketing issue, that the issues are not being explained and agreed upon as broadly as they should be. If people do not agree with a decision you’re about to make, today we just say “You’re a moron, I’m doing it anyway.” This is probably not a recipe for long term success.

Anyhow, assuming that 45% of the people are red and 45% of the people are blue, you might expect that the politicians would pursue the remaining 10% and try and sell them on their points. But this is not what they do at all. In fact, they sell less than even the 45% of the people who are already on their side. They sell something like 30% of their followers, but REALLY focus on selling 30% of their followers to get them out to vote. This is one of the most depressing things about voting today. It’s not “get broad agreement on positions and sell to everyone”, knowing that you’ll fail with some percentage. It’s “take an ultra-extreme position and get your people out to vote”. The real problem here is it seems like it just serves to exacerbate the differences in position, and will ultimately leave 70% of the country feeling like you do not really represent them.

Defamer: Britney Vs. The Paparazzi, Round Two I don't know... are they really that misshapen? Also, here's a hint Britney... less crazy, not more.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | New Florida vote scandal feared

This is pretty nauseating. There was an interesting point on Instapundit saying that stopping people from voting who deserve to vote is no better or worse than allowing people to vote who do not have the right. However, given the amount of people in this country who would vote illegally (meaning vote when they do not have the right or vote twice) versus the number of people who would be stopped from voting who actually have the right, I think it comes down pretty clearly on the "let people vote" side.

Honestly, just do the math and see what the outcome is. 1.5 million people had their votes spoiled last time. Do we really think that 1.5 million people are going to go out and mis-vote? Even if you say that there are 10 million people who do not have the right to vote (which is a totally theoretical number), what percentage of them would actually vote and/or would actually be stopped by these measures? If the number of bad people stopped < to the number of good people prevented, it's bad. Otherwise it's good. My opinion is that while I agree with Instapundit in theory, I think that with these tactics more legitimate voters will be prevented from voting than illegitimate voters will be prevented from voting. This is unacceptable.

Great news everyone, I'm more like Ghandi than like Hitler!

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

While I don't think any single tool could ever really capture someone's behavior, nor do I think that a tool should be used to help you make decisions, this is an interesting one.

FYI, I'm:
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

D

Road rage checklist

Note to self... give another driver the "stink eye".

Ashlee Simpson Screw up on SNL lip sync @ ebaumsworld.com

Oh, so very painful. SO very painful.

By the way, if you're interested in watching a series of videos that will make you laugh so hard you will feel like crying and simultaneously exclaim "I'm going to hell for that one", I invite you to browse around that site. But you have been warned. I wash my hands of responsibility for your eternal resting place.

The City Maps

So much money flowing in... here's where it's coming from. Just FYI, I'm in a light blue area. I know, I know... $ = speech, but it still feels so shady.

For cell phones, it's TV to the rescue | CNET News.com

Um, ok, but who's going to save TV? I'm sorry, but watching Survivor on a 2x2 cm screen probably isn't my viewing medium of choice. And since I do not watch commercials anymore, where is TV going to make their money?

The New York Times > Week in Review > The Best of Physics: What Makes an Equation Beautiful

I love the beauty in these equations. e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0 is one of the greatest equations ever. I just love it. It takes the short hand for expressing the relationship of 1/x to the x axis as x goes to infinity, the short hand for the relationship of a diameter to the circumference of a circle, the short hand for the square root of -1 and relates them to the two most fundamental concepts in the universe: something (1) and nothing (0). All the components seem independent, yet they are all related. Outstanding!!

One thing that just ran across my mind was the relationship of entropy to physics and math. If our universe tends towards chaos and equations bring order to the chaos, aren't these equations violating the laws of thermodynamics?

[Updated] Added a definition.

I've been searching forever for a way to get rid of my piece of garbage cell phone. Thankfully, I've found it.

Audiovox SMT 5600 review by PC Magazine

I've actually been really amazed at how long it's taken to get true convergence between all the devices. Why do I have to carry car key, house key, cell phone and wallet? Shouldn’t these all be one device? Even excluding the keys and the wallet, which I’m sure will be coming soon, it does seem like it’s taking forever for me to have a music player, a pda and a cell phone all in one. There’s really no need for an iPod… if you’re going to carry around a light weight cell phone, it should have access to your calendar, music, etc. It seems so simple, but it’s taken forever to get there. I’m really excited about this one.

Keyhole I wanted to pass along this super cool mapping software. It's especially awesome because it takes publically available data and merges it all together really nicely. Check out this movie! Where is the nearest Dunkin Donuts to me?

Ok, I have to admit it... I read defamer.com. It's so addictive. Some time I'd love to figure out why what other people are doing is so interesting. Of course, this is kind of true for just about anyone... not just famous people. But with famous people you can at least talk about it with someone else.

D

One thing that really struck me about the time we live in is how disturbingly close to the dystopia (I was going to give a shout out to the dictionary for making me sound smart, but I remembered this word on my own!) of Orwell's 1984. I mean just look at what the ministry of truth says…

WAR IS PEACE

War is the state of our being today. We are part of a never ending “war”, either on terror or rogue nations or whatever. And this constantly distracts us from our internal issues. Because these wars can never be won, the government can keep them going, totally legitimately, forever. I’m not saying this is a conspiracy or that we shouldn’t focus on the people who attack us and try and keep ourselves safe, but we have to do it in perspective.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Civil rights are more threatened today than they ever have been in the past. In fact, my saying this would be construed by some as unpatriotic, even though the rights laid out in our Constitution have gone through a lot more arduous times than these we are living in now with no change. In 1812 we had the entire British army marching through Washington… that’s a bit worse than today’s environment, no?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

This is a more subtle one, but just look at how ready people are to not know. When the president can get up and say he “just does not know” about global warming, or stem cells or being gay from birth v. being a choice that should be unacceptable. Our leaders SHOULD know. They SHOULD drive to an answer and understand our world as well as any of us to make the best decisions that affect everyone. But they do not and they do not want to (and I think both parties suffer from this).

I do not mean to sound so alarmist. Things will swing back and things will get better. I just feel very uncomfortable looking at the way things are today.

D

On a bit of a lighter note, last night I went to a local bar to watch the Red Sox beat the Yankees. First, I have never really been a Red Sox or Yankees fan, but I was very impressed with the way the Red Sox were so determined to win, even while they were up by 2x over the Yankees. It was remarkable not to have even a hint of arrogance or expectation (especially contrasting this with their normal behavior).

The second thing that my girlfriend's sister pointed out to me was how many people were there. It seems kind of odd really. At home I have a good TV, beer, etc yet people derive more enjoyment from watching things in crowds than they do by themselves. During the average movie or tv show, I will laugh outloud very rarely though I might find many things funny. Yet in a theatre I'll laugh at length at terrible jokes. Why is this? I feel like it's something about how we're wired to feel similar things as those around us, but I could not tell you why for the life of me.

D

I’d like to take this opportunity to be totally self-righteous. Feel free to tune out here.

I cannot tell you how frustrated I am with conservatives and liberals. Do you guys have any idea what your parties used to stand for? Conservative = conservative use of government. Liberal = liberal use of government. Let’s play a little question and answer:

Should the federal government stop gay marriage?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that government has a responsibility to protect the institution of marriage
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government does not have the right to dictate how people live

Should the federal government support faith based institutions?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government has a responsibility to encourage a system of beliefs
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that church and state should be separate

Should the government spend more than it takes in?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government can take on debt to provide more services for its citizens
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government should not burden the future with liabilities for benefits in the present

Should the government restrict drugs, gambling and prostitution?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government has a responsibility to enforce a set of moral standards
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government should not legislate self-affecting behavior

I could go on. In the interest of full disclosure, according to this, I’m a conservative. Interestingly, I suppose this is just my definition, since the dictionary says that conservative is “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions” and liberalism is “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties” (Fascinating how different those are! Would anyone not consider themselves a liberal according to that definition? They’re not even really antithetical! (Let’s hear it for the dictionary/thesaurus and making me sound smart(-ish)))

Anyhow, doesn’t it seem like that should be how parties divide? Today it is caught up in such a mish-mosh. Conservatives today believe in maintaining their values but then go about pushing those values on everyone else. Liberals … well I don’t know what Liberals do today. They are kind of all around but they seem to be so much less vocal than their conservative counterparts.

One of the most interesting exercises I did during the debates was reading up on all the live blogging taking place on the right wing or right wing leaning blogs (http://www.hughhewitt.com/, http://www.rightwingnews.com/, http://polipundit.com/, http://www.instapundit.com/, etc) . Though I do not espouse many of their beliefs (either about their politics or who won the debates), it gave me a great sense for how people who do not share my beliefs look at the problem. I just think it’s a shame that both of us do not have parties which represent the two sides of our issues in a consistent way.

In truth, if I could ask for one thing from our elected officials, it would be to get out of the way of my life and what I want to do (legally). Guns? Sure. Drugs? Bring them on. Religion? I have one, but lots of other people don’t, and I don’t care. Etc. I think that's probably why I'm not a Republican... I just feel like they have their set of beliefs and they push them in a way that affects me either directly or indirectly (abortion/stem cell; drugs; faith based institutions; etc). I suppose my wish for the government to do what it does (defend us, defend the planet and keep the law) is more libertarian than anything else. Of course, in the thousand shades of gray that is the experience of being in politics, I do not think that anyone would be against these. It is just that when the 10th bill comes up for the refunding of the NEA (which I think is an extension of defend us because it reduces crime by making people more learned), it is tough to call it quite as black and white as I have just laid out.

D

Google Desktop Search Launches @ Searchblog

I've installed the Google desktop search and in truth, it's pretty good. It's not great and it's not horrible. But it's just pretty good (for the curious, you can install it here). I've played with a lot of other search tools, both public and not, and I can tell you there's a lot else out there that searches better, faster and so on. Plus there are plenty of design issues I'd like to see improved:

• Search as I type
• Unlimited listing of all items I search for
• Better and deeper previews of what I'm searching for
• Directly open the documents (rather than opening another browser window)
• Highlight search terms

X1 is probably the best I've used... it's just so much money! The thing that this actually highlighted for me was dual fold:

1. Google is going after MS hard core. We knew this was true, but this is the first salvo.
2. Google has made bad product (and non-customer centric) decisions in favor of increasing their revenue stream.

This latter point is the most dramatic. A company that was trying to simply solve the search problem with no assumptions about the right or wrong way to do it would have built a small app that integrated into the shell and opened a custom window on its own (much like X1). But Google did not do any of that:

• They hacked together a solution that uses a browser window instead of making it separate to reuse the engine they already have instead of one designed for the desktop;
• They only have one blank, with limited ability for the average person to figure out how to prune down the findings;
• They display a limited amount per screen to increase their ad revenue (yes I know that ads aren't there, but how long do you think that will last);
• They optimized for something users do not care about any more (400k app size) - actually, I don't know why they did this other than they're good engineers :)

I don't think this is the end of Google being cool; it's just kind of unfortunate that the realities of business are now affecting their behavior.

D

BBC News Electoral Map of Historical Elections

This is kind of cool... interesting to see how united our country used to be, either for one candidate or the other. Is this a cause or an effect of the way that we view politics today?

One thing that has always amazed me is how people discuss states like "Red state" and "Blue state" as though 100% of the people in that state felt a certain way. But that's proveably not the case! To go back to one of my favorite sites, electoral-vote.com, even in an unbelievably blue or red state (TX or MA as examples), the populous is not voting 100% blue or red! There are still 30-40% of the population in that state who supports the alternative candidate.

The interesting part about this is that when we look at talk shows or newspapers or blogs or whatever to evaluate the two positions, there is absolutely no room for subtley whatsoever. I realize that demonizing and skewing the opposing side is a wonderful motivator but the map shows... if you alienate the other side, you're alienating ~40-50% of the people. And if that other side loses, they're going to be pissed, because you've made it clear that they are the devil. And if you lose to them, you're going to be pissed, because you hate them and how could you lose to the devil.

I'm not saying we should all get together and hold hands, but there's got to be a better way for debate and discussion to happen in this country. If nothing else, PLEASE realize that the person on the other side is a rational human being who probably has done some thinking and believes what they believe for a fairly rational reason. PLEASE try and at least understand that reason without trying to convince them that they are wrong. Then when you don't agree with the reason (and you won't), say thank you very much and walk away. They are not the devil; they just do not see things the same way you do. There, isn't that better?

D

IFILM - Short Films: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host

I wish that everyone in the media could go watch this clip and realize that you just are not doing your jobs. This goes back to the game theory thing where you'd think if there was some advantage to the media doing their jobs right, they would be doing it. But they're not doing their jobs and I cannot figure out why. Maybe it's because you'd be cut off by the people you're trying to interview if you ask tough questions. Maybe the audience just likes to hear an answer from someone they believe who will tell them the truth and that's why the talking points are so valuable. But no matter what, politicians are not doing their jobs because our representatives (the media) are not doing their jobs. The media is the only method by which an average person ideas can be heard in today's environment. You can say I could write a letter or something, which I can, but it's just as lost as me showing up to a rally and holding up a banner (though not even this would be possible at some rallys). Being on the front cover of the Times or the Post is the only way to really scare politicians any more. Maybe blogging will reach that point some day, but it's not soon, I guarantee it.

For the news media, here are some questions you can ask either candidate that will greatly help the American people:

Bush:

• Why did you decided to go into Iraq? [pause for answer] If that is the reason you decided to go into Iraq, how did you distinguish that reason for going into Iraq over all the other reasons to go into Iraq? [pause for answer] Because you think that is the most important reason, why was it necessary to go into Iraq vs. all the other countries in the world that meet that criteria (depending on answer, this will be between 20-40 countries)?
• Why did the top 10% of earners in the country need a tax cut? Forget about the other 90%, why did the top 10% need a tax cut? (note, he say something about the 90% here) No, I said forget about the rest of the 90%, leave those tax cuts. Why did the top 10% need a tax cut? (note, he say something about small businesses) No forget S Corps and LLCs, why do individuals who earn in the top 10% of all people in the country need a tax cut?
• Why won’t you denounce the Sinclair media group and/or the veterans for “truth”? (will say something about not supporting them) Ok, fine, glad you don’t support them. Why won’t you denounce them and demand they stop showing it?
• Why won’t you release all the information from the secret meetings about energy policy? (will mention something about national security) Come on, national energy policy is national security protected?
• What did you say you would do 4 years ago when you took office? What have you done? (will list a bunch of stuff, none of which will be matched by the things they said they would do) Why should we believe you that you will get those things done when you didn’t get them done then? (will mention something about 9-11 etc) No, you had an opportunity to act even before 9-11, and you didn’t; after 9-11 you acted to go into Iraq, but could have acted on anything you claimed you would do, but did not… why should we trust you now?

Kerry:

• Why are you pushing off our negotiating with drug companies to Canada? (note, will say something about enabling Medicare to negotiate) Fine, but before you try and implement nationalized health care or getting Medicare moving, why wouldn’t you try and negotiate down prescription drugs by doing volume purchasing? Why do you think the drug companies wouldn’t prevent you from getting drugs from Canada en masse?
• When the U.N. passes 17 resolutions against Iran or North Korea, when will you invade? (will mention something about when the coalition agrees, etc) Ok, but Iran isn’t invading anyone, North Korea isn’t invading anyone, how are you going to get a coalition together? These are clear and present dangers against the safety of the world, what will be the line after which you will invade?
• Why won’t the health care plan increase the deficit and/or reduce money available for something else? (will answer something about the roll back of the top 2% etc) Fine, if that’s the case, then before the tax cut, you’re claiming we had that money, which we clearly did not. How are you going to fund it? (will continue to answer something about the top 2% tax cut) Ok, so you’re saying you can add a huge new expense (homeland security) and a huge new expense (war in Iraq) and a huge new expense (medical coverage for everyone) and increase revenues by an amount not enough to cover any of them (top 2% tax cut reversal) and not increase the deficit?
• The number 1 killer of Americans is not terrorism, it’s heart disease, then cancer, then stroke. Why would we spend so much on terrorism when we should be spending all our money on the above three?

I admit I believe that Kerry exaggerates less than Bush probably based on my personal politics, but this may be verified by the relative number of misleading items identified by factcheck.org. These seem like simple questions, why can’t we get straight answers? Why wouldn’t shows that claim to be straight forward with politicians ask these questions over and over again until they get answered? Note: these questions may also be asked of the commentators. In the mean time, here’s an interesting take from the guy who was actually asked these questions for six years… “Ask. But Don't Tell.” – Michael Kinsley

As an aside, I'm going to spend the next week getting all these political commentary points out of the way, since it'll be at least 3.5 years since I'll be able to do that again.

D

Check it out! A really neat how to vote tool!

http://www.undecidedvote.org/

Chance of the average person using this to decide how to vote... zero. But we can hope, can't we?

D

The American candidate ended on Sunday, and it was a pretty good run until the end where it kind of died off. The most interesting part for me was that the show started out with a wide range of political positions, though it was probably a little bit "progressive" heavy (read: liberal), but ended up with the exact same shlock that we see every day. The individual who won, Park, was a conservative and gave a closing speech which not only left me out (as a non-Christian) but could have been given by anyone in Congress or the Senate (note: this is not a good thing). This kind of goes back to game theory. If it was a successful strategy to really be different, people would be. The fact that they're not probably says something. I'm not saying that people shouldn't push the limits, but the reason these kind of people get elected is because they appeal to the broadest set of people.

D

I heard an interesting point today about my recent use of hand-sanitizer. As we all know, flu season is nearly upon us and one of the best ways to avoid getting the flu is constantly washing your hands and face. I always find this amazing, because I never really think about touching my face that much (and certainly not enough to get flu bacteria into my mouth or eyes or whatever), but I am sure if you had a video camera on me, you’d see me touching my face about every 20 seconds.

Right there! I just scratched my eyelid! What a coincidence!

Anyhow, the discussion was about using those disinfectant instant hand sanitizers on a more regular basis and thus selecting for mutant super strong bacteria which can beat you up and kick your dog and urinate on your car. Naturally, this gave me pause, but then I tried to do the logical extreme. If this stuff is bad, how does it differ from simply washing your hands? Do you simply wash the germs off, or are you killing them? Doesn’t soap kill germs at all? We’ve been using soap and water for 150 years, you’d think that would lead to some kind of soap resistant bacteria, no?

A quick browse around the web led to the following:

• School website saying it’s bad. Interestingly, they also comment on the killing of germs and say that the soap and water simply causes the germs to lose their grip. If so, after 150 years, wouldn’t we have super sticky germs that DIDN’T lose their grip? The other thing this site says is that they’re no ties to anti-bacterial washes and cold/flu. Now that is interesting; I’d love to see the study on that.
• Purell’s website (which of course will be unbiased) claims that the scientist who raised this point was not talking about alcohol-based hand sanitizers (Dr. Stuart Levy if you’re curious)
• Infection Control Today which says that alcohol sanitizers are not encouraging resistance. Just as an aside, this last reference has a footnote, which means that they know what they’re talking about! (Footnotes are a clear indication of quality, as is high quality paper and/or a clear plastic binder)
• CDC Search on the subject seems to indicate they’re using it all over the place. Not that that indicates ultimate credibility, but they’re probably on the right track. (Also in that search, you’ll find "Where to hide during a radiation attack", which I find pretty funny since you’re basically either dead, alive with cancer or not close enough. There’s really not too much in-between.)

My thoughts on it: I think the alcohol basically completely denatures the bacteria without using antibiotics and, though you could generate alcohol resistant germs, you’re probably just as likely to evolve humans with fire-resistant skin. Of course, humans do not really go through millions of generations of evolution in the same time period that bacteria do but I'd like to think the analogy holds.

D

Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

Neat map and I'm watching it every day. Sometimes I look at some of those states and simply try and WILL them my way. This has not worked to date. Still, i'll probably watch it until the date comes around.

One interesting bit for me is that this is just one more level of my abstraction from the actual data. This site is reporting on the reports of the polls. If anyone in that chain of information lied in any way, I'd really have no way of knowing.

Updated: I actually linked to the August 11th edition... corrected.

As a bit of a follow up to the last oil post...

Turning the Tide: Peak Oil Theory

This is always one of the "theories" that works extremely well as a thought exercise, but terribly in practice. Like "Communism". Or "Geometry". Seriously though... this again seems like something that is pretty straight forward:

1. Limited amount of oil in the world
2. At some point 1, the amount we can get at easily will begin to decrease
3. At some point 2, the amount we can get at with some work will begin to decrease
4. At some point 3, the amount we can get at when we recycle french fries and clean off of pimply-kid's foreheads will begin to decrease

• Out of oil

Far be it from me to have a different opinion than someone who has actually researched, well, everything, but I definitely do not feel like it’s a binary thing. At some point (we may have already reached this), we’ll move from 2 to 3 and new technology for getting oil and/or other ways of powering life will begin to emerge. At the time when a gallon of gas is cheaper than a gallon of bottled water (I believe it still is in most places), those other options were simply not cost effective. Soon, they will be, and we’ll begin to move over. I don’t think it’s the end of the world since it will be such a gradual change for the economy, it’ll just seem natural, like horses to cars or kerosene to electricity.

An interesting point Chomsky brings up, however, is the thought of what it will do to the environment with all those hydrocarbons expelled and floating around. Let’s have some fun with math and let’s see if I can remember my old chemistry:

• The world oil reserves are 1 trillion barrels, which is generally reported as half of what are actually discovered, so call it 2 trillion barrels.
• A barrel is 42 gallons, so you’ve got 3.18 × 10^14 liters of oil.
• 3.18 x 10^14 liters of oil * 873 kg / liter (assuming all the oil comes from TX) * 85% carbon gives you 2.35E+13 metric tons (tonnes?) of carbon.
• Assuming 100% of the carbon is converted into carbon dioxide that gives you 2.35 * 10^13 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which given the density of carbon dioxide (1.977 g/L), gives us 1.2 * 10^20 L or 1.2 * 10^17 m^3 of CO2.

Ok, that’s a big number. How big? If a very rough approximation of the US is 6000 KM wide and 2000 KM (and apparently looked a lot like a rectangular Jello mold), this would make a cube reaching ~100 KM into space. Ok, that’s not good. How about the world? The surface of the earth is about 10^15 m^2, so it’d cover the entire earth to a depth of about 11 m. Wow, that still sounds like a lot.

Now let’s compare. Assume that we have significant and constant atmosphere to about 200 KM (which is a bit of a stretch, to be sure). Take that same surface of the earth and multiply it times the height and the amount of CO^2 in the air (0.03%) and you get a depth of about 60 m of CO2 around the entire earth.

So the net is you’d increase the amount of CO2 in the air by about 15%, and increase the percentage of CO2 in the air to about 0.04%. How big a deal that is, I could not tell you. Please do not hesitate to jump on in and tell me where I’m wrong… it’s probably in all that conversion crap.

Tim Worstall: Oil Price Disaster? Why doesn't this slow the economy? I don't get it. I realize you can take the entire extent of my knowledge of economy and put it in a closet and still have plenty of room for all your extra books, winter clothes and the Michigan State Marching Band, but this seems to be a pretty straight forward thing to me, and I just cannot figure it out.

1. People/corporations use gas/oil
2. Gas/oil goes up in price
3. People/corporations have less money to spend on non-gas/oil

• Economy suffers

No? Enlightenment welcome.

With the Paul Hamm discussion still underway about whether or not he actually won the gold medal, I thought I might comment on it:

Hamm upset by tape review

I'm somewhat surprised there are still so many people out there who reject instant replay as a part of sports. Are humans perfect? Of course not! Why would you not want instant replay to be part of EVERY sport? At least then you can make accurate a decision as possible. However, to this specific point, I think it's ridiculous that the Koreans are raising this point and thinking they are correct. If you have a replay, then you replay the entire routine, and he apparently had four holds instead of three which would cause further deductions (what that means exactly is beyond my gymnastic comprehending mind).

I see this sort of behavior repeat itself all over the place. Why do people feel like they can use something in one way and not expect the exact same object/event/whatever to be turned around on them? I was going to reference any number of political gaffes at this point, but I’ll save myself the embarrassment of quoting them incorrectly and just point you at the Daily Show which does a much better job of covering them.