I watched a half-hour show, on the Science Channel, about time travel.  It talked about possible ways of achieving it and having actually done so with sound.  They used a laser and apparently reached speeds of five times the speed of light.  I guess I missed something, because I thought nothing could travel faster than light.  But that's a different matter (that might be a joke).

  Another thing mentioned was the "Grandfather Paradox".  If you don't know what that is, it asks, if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he has any children, then wouldn't that mean you would never have existed to go back in time and kill him?  Not entirely sure why it uses grandfather and not father, but that's not the point.

  One man's theory around the paradox is that what you do is travel instead to a parallel universe, from which you can't return.  I bring this up, because a few days ago, I was passively thinking about the movie, What The Bleep Do We Know?, and the idea of multiple universes, and I thought to myself, what if what we would view as time traveling would actually be traveling to an alternate universe, or better yet, what if that is what would actually create alternate universes?

  There was nothing said of creating alternate universes, but it was nice to hear an idea that I had be also had by someone actually studying the idea of time travel.  Naturally, I'm not reading too much into this, because I suspect many people who have pondered time travel have at least fleetingly wondered the same thing, but it's still nice to have the idea validated.

  Were you wondering if there were any new examples of Liberal hypocrisy?  Well, you're in luck.  They never fail to provide in that department.  Go back in time a year or two and recall the frequent accusations, by the Liberals, that Iraq was, or would be, another Vietnam.  Put a pin in that, and let's look at three of the reasons why Vietnam was a failure (note that I said "three of the" and not "the three").

  1.  Military decisions were being made by politicians instead of the military.

  2.  Because of the draft, a significant number of the soldiers did not even want to be in the military, much less in a battle field.

  3.  We left before we finished the job.  We created a vacuum and then bugged out, allowing the "wrong" kind of guy take power.

  Now let's look at the war in Iraq.

  1.  Politicians are making military decisions, largely due to Liberals not allowing a war to be fought like a war.  If Sun Tzu were alive today, he'd have an embolism.

  2.  Liberal, Charlie Rangel, has promised to propose re-instating the draft, which in itself is completely contrary to Liberal philosophy.  I really can't see such a thing being passed, but if it does... wow.

  3.  The Liberals have been chomping at the bit about "redeployment".  Basically, leaving before a fully self-sufficient, democratic government is firmly in place.  The really fascinating thing is how, some time between the end of the election day and the day or two after, the situation in Iraq SUDDENLY became such that we could not leave any time soon.

  It didn't take a genius to see that the Liberals had/have absolutely no strategy of their own.  Their objective didn't extend beyond obtaining power for its own sake.  Just the existence of their massive and obvious hypocrisy is evidence of that.

  This is not to say it was a bad strategy in the short term.  It obviously worked.  Base the entire campaign on nothing but attacking your opponent's choices.  Do it long enough and loud enough to wear them down, no matter what the cost to the voters, just as long as enough of the voters aren't paying attention to anything but you.

  And because your opponents were actually right to begin with, before you managed to get them to compromise their principles left and right, you take the majority of the votes using a few figureheads that reflected the more important values that used to be held by your opponents.  Yeah!  You have the power!

  Now what?  The real decision-makers aren't about to start emulating the opponents, if they can help it, and it's not like  you had any real plans of your own, except the ones that only the exceptionally moronic of your followers agree with; namely the plans that sound good on the surface but end up in disaster.

  But I digress.

  The really interesting thing about all this is that here we can find hypocrisies WITHIN hypocrisies.  You just don't see that very often.  It's like, fractal hypocrisy.  I wonder if you could draw THAT with a computer.

  For some reason, I find myself wondering what John Kerry's position is on these three factors.  I'm pretty sure I've heard his position on two of them, but who knows what it might be today.  FYI: the rest of this section is basically me slamming John Kerry, but I have legitimate reasons, as you'll see.

  As I said, in a previous post, when he was running for President, he completely failed to convince me that he believed in anything other than his own acquisition of power.  His dubious military past, his lies about fellow soldiers, his minimal effort as a Senator, his constant flip-flopping, and just flat-out saying stupid things like "I voted for it before I voted against it".

  Say what you will about Bush's mispronunciations and the way he laughs and whatever the hell you want.  John Kerry's entire campaign was a practice in utter stupidity.  I suspect that anyone who voted for him was either one of two things:  a complete idiot or driven completely by a hatred for either Republicans, Conservatives, Bush, or any combination of the three, which just makes them a different kind of idiot for letting their emotions rule them so much.

  Pretty much the only reason I'm still on about him is because, in retrospect, I'm even more amazed at how close the race was.