Oh Boy...

By -
Paul didn't lose California because he was polling around 5%, exit polling around 5%, and actually got around 5% of the vote. Oh no, Paulanoia has a much, much better explanation:

'Writes Holly Clearman:"After sifting through the results of California's primary, a phenomenon has occurred that can only be explained as a statistical miracle.

'"In California, a state larger and more diverse than many countries, each and every congressional district returned the same result. The Republican candidates placed first through fourth in the same order and in nearly the same proportion except for CD 52 where in an inexplicable fit of randomness, Romney beat McCain. It's astonishing."'

Yes, it's astonishing that her Paulanoia makes her unable to read the results, which first of all vary a good bit in proportion and what's more, in order as well. A quick scan shows Paul in fourth in about half the districts, but Giuliani in fourth in about another half, and Duncan Hunter even finishing ahead of Paul in one district.

Oh, by the way: The reason Paul didn't make it as a major league baseball player? The CIA would sit in the stands at his high school games and flash the sun into his eyes using mirrors.

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:25 PM

    The page is so wonderful that I want to write something about myself.
    Yesterday, my boyfriend gave me a lot of FFXI Giland he told me that the FFXI gold is useful for me to go into the net game. At the same time, the Final Fantasy XI gold is the gift for my birthday and I will buy FFXI Gil to thank him because the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is not free for him.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more