The Art of Compromise

Our beloved maximum leader has declared that he will veto any bill that funds the troops and includes a timetable for withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Period.

He has stated that such a timetable would aid the terrorists; when asked why, he said it was "logic."

I think "logic" is a term our beloved leader should avoid introducing. He may be asked about the logic of this inference:

The Congress passes a bill to fund the troops (with a binding or non-binding date of withdrawal).

Therefore

Congress refuses to fund the troops.

Or perhaps he will be asked about the more inductively-based Republican claim that Harry Reid is helping the terrorists. Presumably the argument has to include this premise:

Suicide bombers care what Harry Reid says.

In any case, I think what the Democrats ought to do is pass a bill funding the troops, eliminate any of the "extras" (there will be time for that, and another bill to use for such "add-ons"), and put a deadline for withdrawal--the year 2050.

If Bush views this deadline as unacceptable, it will be clear how long he thinks this war will take. If this deadline is acceptable, then we have a new inference to ponder, relative to the rules of Bush-logic:

I will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal (P)

A bill that puts the year 2050 as a date for withdrawal has a timetable for withdrawal.


Therefore

I will not veto a bill with a timetable for withdrawal (not P).

You have to love Bush's schema here, which is similar to Da Costa's approach known as "Paraconsistent Logic"--although intuitionist logicians might like this rule as well, one that allows the following inference to be valid:

P


therefore


Not P

Gone fishin'

At least it's April

My basketball predictions proved, as usual, to be useless. I should have thought this way: who do I really not want to see in the final game.

Then those two teams would be there. (Although, to be perfectly honest, that method predicts a Duke-UCLA final.)

Basketball fans can now sit back and watch to see who is leaving: Durant? Oden? All of Florida's starters? Brandon Rush? (I predict "yes" for all of them.) This leaves Kansas looking very good for next year. Which, right now, is about all I care about.

On the other hand, the baseball season starts tonight, with some team from New York playing THE WORLD CHAMPION ST. LOUIS CARDINALS. (I get to call them that until October, you see.) The NL Central should again be a battle among mediocrities, with most attention being paid to the Cubs' codependent relationship with the DL, Albert Pujols, the genuine threat posed by Milwaukee, and the return of Roger "the Whore" Clemens to the Astros, which still won't be enough for them to win with their anemic offense and generally annoying approach to life. Biggio gets his 3,000 hit with his team 14.5 games out of first. Sounds just to me.