Beyond Opinion

I have commented on the United Feature Syndicate children's educational comic Kidspot three times, finding an eardrum stick in a middle-word fill-in puzzle, an error in a mathematical puzzle, and the F-word in a word puzzle. Today (2008 January 31) Kidspot featured another word puzzle, and this time there may be hidden messages in it.

This is the puzzle:

B	I	R	D	T	S
A	G	O	O	S	E
T	O	P	G	S	V
C	A	N	D	L	E
S	T	A	R	S	N

Around the puzzle are pictures of a bird, a bat, some stars, a rose, the number 7, a candle, a goat, a top, a goose, and a dog. All of these can be easily found in this puzzle.

Like the previous puzzle, there are other unintended words in it, not all of them following straight lines. "Top", for example, appears twice in the puzzle. Others are tab, oat, can, bag, gab, gird, pot, goon, cast, too, cat, goo, pat, and coo.

There also is in the puzzle the word "Google", shown in bold face in the puzzle. Is this a plug for Google? Does the UFS want kids to learn how to Google at an early age? Googling certainly can find a lot of information, but hiding "Google" in a puzzle of this sort is something that Google itself is likely to do.

There is another one, highlighted in dark red. This is the string "Roosevel". It suggests "Roosevelt" as in Teddy or Franklin. First of all, why did they put Roosevelt in this puzzle, and why is it incomplete? Here is one possibility. FDR was the last President to provide over a nation of crisis, first of all a major depression, and then World War II. Are they saying that we are going to get another president similar to Roosevelt, but we haven't gotten there as yet, as symbolized by the missing t. Do they mean the next President of the United States will be a Crisis President like Roosevelt. If so, in my opinion they are correct. I believe this country is headed towards several crises, including Peak Oil, retirement of Baby Boomers, and global warming. Further, Strauss and Howe predict a crisis 20 years long that they call the Fourth Turning, and further, a Crisis President would fit in my Periodic Presidents theory.

They put both Google and Roosevel in the puzzle, then. So what happens when I Google "roosevel"? I get a biography of Eleanor Roosevelt! Now this gets interesting. Not only are they suggesting a crisis, but they are bringing up a woman, and a strong-willed one at that, as our leader during this crisis. Are they saying that Hillary Clinton will be our Crisis President? Perhaps. But my objection to this is that we are founding a dynasty with a Queen instead of a President, with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Obama breaks away from anything that has happened before, and besides, he is young, black, white, Hawaiian, and Indonesian, as well as American. He stands for the entire world. So I think if they are going to sneak words in these puzzles, that they sneak "Obama" in the next one.

The race for who will be the next President of the United States and quite likely a Crisis President will be heating up like mad the next few days. We just lost a Democratic candidate tonight - Dennis Kucinich, who is going to quit to concentrate on campaigning for the Ohio senate Democratic primary. Mike Gravel is a do-nothing candidate, so it is down to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, one of whom will be the next President.

On the Republican side, it has been a multi-way see-saw. Huckabee won Iowa, then McCain in New Hampshire. Romney took Wyoming, Nevada, and Michigan, and McCain took South Carolina, with Huckabee a close second. Huckabee is running out of money. We lost two other candidates - Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. So now there are only five candidates: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul. Rudy's candidacy has gotten really weak as of late. He has not campaigned in any of the states so far, and is pinning his hopes on Florida, and I hope he wins there. Huckabee is running out of money.

So who do I support? Among those running, I believe John Edwards is the best, followed by Obama and then Clinton. I like all three of these better than any of the Republicans. To me, my preference among Republicans is not the important thing. The important thing is who will make more of a mess in that race. We need the pot to be stirred up among the Republicans to prevent them from securing Lichtman Key 2, Contest for the Nomination. Edwards said that McCain will be the nominee. So that is whom not to support. Romney is winning too many primaries to support. Huckabee is running out of money, so supporting him will keep him in the contest and help muddy the waters. Giuliani has yet to win one, so I hope he wins in Florida and makes it a four-way donnybrook. So if you want to support Republican candidates, support Giuliani and Huckabee.

Among the Democrats, Edwards is the best, but he is so far behind that I am afraid that a vote for Edwards is a vote for Clinton. So I would support Obama and hope that when he gets elected President, that he will do something about peak oil and the economy, and will try to stop growth, which is exceeding the planet's capability to sustain.

So if you want to give to the candidates, give to Huckabee, Giuliani, and Obama, with the most towards Obama.

It is now 2008 January 19 19:16 EDT. McCain has won the South Carolina primary. How do I know? CNN and the other networks aren't saying anything yet. The last set of results I have seen for these candidates is a complete set of zeroes. The polls closed only 16 minutes ago. Yet I know that McCain won.

How? Because of the exit polls that are displayed on the CNN site. If you go to their site and look at the listing of the candidates and their vote totals, you will find a link "Exit Polls". Click on that, and it gives you a breakdown of the vote for each candidate by candidate and item. For example, for church attendance, it would be frequently, sometimes, and not at all. The exit poll will tell for each of these categories the percent that each candidate got.

This enables me to find out how much they got altogether. I just sum up the products of the percentage for each of the candidates with the percentage that are in each category (e.g., frequently, 35%). That gives for you the percentage that each candidate got, based on exit polls.

I did that to the South Carolina Republican primary and got that McCain will get 31%, Huckabee about 29%, Romney 16%, Thompson 14%, and Paul 7%. A few crumbs to the other candidates. So McCain won. Later, my blog Hilbert's Hotel the mathematical details behind this procedure, which can be quickly whipped up on a spreadsheet.

The Braves are leaving Richmond, Virginia and relocating in Gwinnett County, Georgia, close to the parent team in Atlanta. Next year is the last season. The problem is that Richmond could not agree on a stadium. In my opinion, Richmond is a hotbed for offers to bring minor league teams here, but no one is going to want a city with a stadium that another team had to leave because of its condition. So the first thing Richmond needs to do is to build another stadium. It's either that or no ball team in Richmond.

But given that, it should be easy for Richmond to get another team. Richmond will be the fourth largest city in the US without a major or AAA minor league team, behind Riverside, California, Orlando, and Jacksonville. But Richmond should not degrade or underrate itself. The population of Richmond is over a million. It is big enough for an AAA team so it should go for one. The Richmond media reports that is impossible. But I don't think so. There are some possibilities out there.

First of all, let's rule out the commonly mentioned possibles. Washington, DC and Baltimore are nearly impossible to get as the parent. This is because of the five-way trade two years ago. This was caused by the Ottawa Lynx being bought out by a Philadelphia group and made a farm team of the Phillies. That caused a five-way swap: the Phillies got the Lynx which was with the Orioles which got the Tides which was with the Mets which got the New Orleans Zephyrs which was with the Nationals which got the Columbus Clippers which were the Yankees which wound up with the former Philadelphia farm team, the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Red Barons, which renamed itself the Yankees. The Orioles and Nationals both got better deals on this. So do you expect these teams to give their clubs up for Richmond?

It's the Mets that got shafted. They tried to get the Barons but wound up with New Orleans which Washington didn't want. This is where the possibility lies. Would the Mets be willing to relocate the Zephyrs in Richmond? It is interesting that the move would make Richmond a free agent, even without a team. The Richmond Times-Dispatch refers to the International League. Why not the Pacific Coast League? One PCL parent is close by - New York. I think Richmond officials should start talking with the Mets, and Soon. For if we wait, the Zephyrs may be hunting around for another parent and may latch onto the Devil Rays. That would free up the Durham Bulls which will wind up with the Mets. If that happens, kiss AAA in Richmond good-bye. There is no way that the Mets will give up a team in Durham for one in Richmond.

Tonight I heard that since Richmond would not build a new stadium for the Richmond Braves, that therefore the Atlanta Braves are going to move the club to Gwinnett County, Georgia. That may be the place where my mother came from, but it's not the place I am currently living in, Richmond. So what do I think of this?

I have never been that much hep about the Braves. I actually rooted against them when I was young and in Rochester, New York, because the Braves were competing with the Red Wings for the International League pennant. That was in 1967, two years after the Braves arrived in Richmond as the AAA farm team of the Atlanta Braves. I moved to Richmond area in 1978, so now I had to root for them. I did get interested in them when they tore down decrepit Parker Field up by Hermitage and Boulevard and replaced it with The Diamond. At that time I recommended that the team change its name to the Richmond Diamonds (that would not do today because of the Arizona Diamondbacks).

Most minor league teams are in a contract with a major league team, and can tell that Jack of a team to hit the road when it feels like it. The Rochester Red Wings did that to the Baltimore Orioles when the Orioles were toying with the idea with moving the Wings or setting up a team in Bowie, Maryland instead, replacing the Baysox. But not the Braves. The Atlanta Braves outright own the Richmond Braves and can do whatever it wants with the team and the city of Richmond can't negotiate with them on that. That is one reason why I am sour on them. It is inflexible; a while ago, I found that Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore could save a lot of fuel money by switching around their AAA affiliates, but that could never happen with Atlanta.

But part of the fault in Richmond Braves moving may be with the City of Richmond itself, especially its mayor, Doug Wilder. There were several proposals to move the team but the city rejected all of them, and it may be now that the parent club are going to pick up the R-Braves and move them. They did that with the Greenville Braves when those Braves would not build a stadium. They are now the Mississippi Braves.

So what should the Richmond area do about the Braves? First of all, a new stadium needs to be built. If the Atlanta Braves don't want it, would you expect some other major league team to want it for their affiliate? Maybe if we get the stadium up, the Braves will keep the R-Braves in Richmond.

But if the R-Braves are lost, what shall the Richmond area do? I say talk with the New York Mets. It seems that the Ottawa Lynx got bought out by the Philadelphia Phillies, and the threw off the Scranton Wilkes-Barre Red Barons, causing both New York teams to go after the Barons. The Yankees got them, and a five-way swap resulted, costing the Mets its Norfolk farm team and forcing them to put up with the far away New Orleans Zephyrs. I bet they would pipe up over a possibility to move that club to Richmond. The name would even match. I would recommend the new Richmond team call itself the Richmond Breeze, suggesting Richmond Braves, Sweet Virginia Breeze, and New Orleans Zephyrs all in one breath. Another possibility would be the Richmond Bears, after the bears that had to be euthanized. Above all, let's not have a Richmond Mets.

But I think the city should begin negotiations with the Mets soon. That's the best way to get a community-owned ball team in Richmond. And please lets build a new stadium and field. The old one is showing signs of age and it still uses the rutty and floody old Parker Field field.

The campaign for the early primaries for the 2008 Presidential election nominations is nearing an end, and it looks like a photo finish for the Democrats. A recent poll had Edwards 24, Obama, 23, and Clinton 22. Other polls show Edwards in a good position. Right now the poll is Clinton 34, Obama 31, and Edwards 17, with other candidates and other responses totaling 19 percent. This suggests that Edwards has slipped a bit, and seems to favor Clinton.

But this is a caucus, not a primary or election. This means a group of people get together and agree on a candidate, or in some cases, a slate of candidates with numbers attached. In these caucuses, the people favoring lesser candidates like Kucinich and Biden are urged to switch to one of the candidates who has more votes. This means that if Kucinich, Biden, and other supporters have Edwards as a second choice, he may have a chance. In fact, I have heard two statements in the media that question a Clinton outcome. One says that almost no one has Clinton for a second choice. She is a polarizing candidate, apparently. Another one says that almost all of the lesser candidates' (and Obama) supporters have Edwards as a second choice. Indeed, an article in the Southern Political Support says that Edwards has the advantage. It cites a report by the Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research which says the current tally is Edwards, 41, Clinton, 34, Obama 25. This organization correctly predicted in 2004 that John Kerry would win Iowa's caucuses, even though Howard Dean had a huge, although dwindling, lead.

How did they do it? They attempt to mimic the caucus proceedings. They record second choices. This is something that should give wow to you. Edwards, 61, Clinton, 21, Obama, 17. Edwards is the second choice of a lot of people. They then take the support for all those candidates getting less than 15% and undecideds and allocate them based on second choices. The result is as I stated above, with Edwards easily winning.

Now I notice this morning that Edwards is trailing badly. I tried working out this scheme this morning. 19 percent are for other candidates or for something else. I split them between Obama and Edwards. The result was Obama 38, Clinton 34, Edwards 25. An Obama victory. If one believes a comment that all of the second place preferences are for Edwards, then Edwards has 17+19 or 36 percent of the vote, to 34 for Clinton and 30 for Obama. A real horse race, with Edwards barely winning.

To me, however, it looks like an Obama victory. By the way, here are my preferences right now:

Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Biden
Dodd
Richardson
Gravel
Clinton

So it looks like a three-way cliffhanger for the Democrats. The Republican race instead reminds me of a three-ring circus. Call it an eight-ring circus, as there are eight candidates. First it's Giuliani and McCain for the top spot. The dark horse Fred Thompson comes in and fizzles. Romney then gets into a religious spat with the other candidates. Huckabee all of a sudden rises in the polls, with the result being a ding-dog knock-down fight between Huckabee and Romney. Huckabee leads in Iowa right now, but now McCain is gaining in New Hampshire. If this keeps up, the Republicans will agree on no one, and Lichtman Key 2 will fall, virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory.

And in any case, the Republicans are having a beauty contest in Iowa, while the Democrats could be selecting one of the greatest leaders the world has known. This is because the Lichtman keys suggest a Democratic victory, and there are several reasons, including peak oil, retirement of baby boomers, and the Fourth Turning, which say that the world could be headed for a crisis.

Recently I have been looking with interest at Kidspot, a newspaper comic that features a fun and educational thing for children to do. I have noticed problems in a couple of these puzzles by Dick Rogers, whose name for some reason does not appear in today's comic. Today, 2008 January 2, the Kidspot puzzle presented this array:

A	C	A	N	D	L	E
B	L	A	V	O	E	D
B	O	O	T	G	A	U
A	C	A	N	E	F	C
T	K	N	I	F	E	K

Find the words. The names of the picture clues are hidden in the square. Circle each word, going across, down and diagonally.

Accompanying the puzzle are pictures of a boot, a knife, a candle, a duck, a cat, a dog, a clock, a leaf, a bat, and a cane. These words can all be readily identified in the puzzle. So in that sense it is a good puzzle, a children's version of these "word puzzles" that we occasionally see in newspapers and magazines.

There are other words in the puzzle. Usually in these puzzles, one can go backwards and up as well as forwards and down. All of the pictures are represented by words that go forwards, down and diagonally forwards and down. But what if you go backwards and up? You will find words like FINK and GOD. OK, these are backwards for part of KNIFE and DOG, but there are others, such as TAB and the singing group ABBA, making me wonder if they paid for a plug. There is also the non-word verb BLAVO, and its past tense BLAVOED. These don't seem to affect the puzzle much, as the child is more likely to go forward and down.

But what's this I see in the lower right corner? Doesn't that look like the F-word sitting there in a t-pattern? Sure enough, there's an F, a U, a C, and a K. Almost assuredly a child, especially an older child, is going to notice that combination. Do the United Features Syndicate and Dick Rogers (if he authored the puzzle) really intend for this pattern of letters to be in a puzzle for children? One thing's for sure. If you are going to include a duck in a puzzle of this sort, make sure the letter F is nowhere near the duck.

For some time I have been noticing the similarities between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Both were senators from Illinois, and both are relatively inexperienced. But today Jim Kunstler said something that really brings shades of Lincoln and 1860 on us. Remember now that 1860 saw the beginning of one of the Fourth Turnings of our country: the Civil War. It was a time of crisis. One of Lincoln's generals said that "War is Hell". Of the President next year he says "Whoever ends up in the oval office will preside over one king-hell of a clusterfuck." Sound similar?

But it is one of Jim Kunstler's other quotes that got me thinking. He says in his 2007 December 31 blog:

I write this a few days before the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary. New York's Mayor Bloomberg is suddenly making noises again about entering the race as an independent. That might lead to a situation as fractured as the one in 1860 that saw a multi-party scuffle send Lincoln into office

Could the 2008 election resemble the 1860 election? What if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and, say, Romney wins for the Republicans, causing Paul to run as an independent. Suppose Michael Bloomberg also runs as an independent. Then you have a four-way pileup similar to 1860's. Here would be the comparison:

Obama: Lincoln
Romney: Breckinridge
Bloomberg: Bell
Paul: Douglas

Paul as Stephen Douglas does not seem similar, as Paul is a rabble-rousing independent, while Douglas worked in the system as a Democrat. How about this instead:

Obama: Lincoln
Romney: Douglas
Huckabee: Breckenridge
Bloomberg: Bell

If so, then Obama will win easily, maybe even taking Idaho where the Republicans would be split between Romney and Huckabee. It will indeed look like 1860. Then if the 1860 scenario were followed, Huckabee's followers (that is, the Radical Religious Right) would rebel and declare independence from Washington. This would lead to Obama calling out the troops to quell insurrections all over the place. The Civil War was between two well-divided sides by the Mason Dixon line. This conflict, on the other hand, would be a sinuous fractal, where the enemy is everywhere. It would be the Fractal War. Throw in the problems of Peak Oil, retirement of baby boomers, and the mortgage and credit crisis, and this country becomes unlivable fast.

Let's hope Obama's Presidency (if he's the one) does not follow this plot.