The Wacky World of Chris Knight

Dems Set War Bill Without Iraq Timeline
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Monday, May 21, 2007

05-21 17:48 PDT WASHINGTON, AP –

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of at least some of the billions they want for domestic programs, officials said Monday.

Lest it ever be forgotten, the Democrats are not really any better for you than the Neocons, they just sometimes don’t smell as bad. Today is a good day to hold your nose in the presence of Nancy Pelosi and every other Democrat who talked tough in front of the cameras, but blew stink when push came to shove.

-Chris Knight

Desmond is wrong. Not because his vision was wrong, but rather because it was incomplete and therefore his interpretation was incorrect.

How could I know his vision was incomplete when we were not shown it? “Elementary, my dear Watson…” We have seen two of Desmond’s visions. One when he was thrown backwards into time, and one where he was thrown into the future. In both instances his journey was viewed from a first person perspective: his. At no time did he see things that were outside his own physical perceptions. He may be unstuck in time, but he is not omnipresent.

Desmond tells Charlie that he sees Claire and the baby get on a helicopter, so we know Desmond returns to the beach. He _knows_ that helicopter will never come unless Charlie goes to the Looking Glass Station. The plan was not for them both to go down, but for only one of them. While Desmond was willing to take Charlie’s place, he still never suggested they both go. So, if Charlie was meant to go alone, Desmond would not be able to see what happened after Charlie went into the water. Whether Desmond’s vision included Charlie wacking him with an oar or not, Desmond’s vision of Charlie ended around the point Charlie entered the water.

Whether Desmond’s vision included his ‘nap’, he certainly never saw Charlie return to the surface. It was not unreasonable for him to assume Charlie drowned, especially since Juliette has (incorrectly) informed them that The Looking Glass is flooded. Assuming Desmond returns to the island, and the castaways are able to contact the ship, it is reasonable for Desmond to assume (in vision and real-time) that Charlie flipped the switch. (More likely he will convince the underwater amazons to flip it.)

Now, one could hypothesize that Desmond knew the Looking Glass wasn’t flooded, and that somehow Charlie flooded the station at the same time he disabled the jamming signal. Could happen, but still Desmond couldn’t know about it unless he was there; which would contradict him being on the beach to see Claire escape in the helicopter.

Given the logic of the show, and their attention to detail and plot consistency, Desmond didn’t see Charlie die. Desmond guessed. Charlie doesn’t have to die purely because of Desmond’s incomplete first-person vision.

All hail Charlie the Hero, may he yet live!

-Chris Knight

ps. I have added a follow-up post explaining why Charlie should not, in fact could not, have drowned the way they show portrayed.

In high school we learned about Democrats and Republicans in civics class. I identified with the Republicans, until Reagan got into office and Republicans started pushing government backed morality… How does the ’smaller government’ party justify injecting themselves into people’s private lives? Any hypocritical way they can…

Do I want the Democrats using my money to fund social programs for people who would rather be on the dole than working? No fracking way.

The Green Party is too idealogical to be practical, and the Libertarians think that trimming back the government to the barest bones and letting the free market rule, despite a hundred years of history of large companies turning evil when not heavily policed, is the best policy. I’m not against small government, but I am practical enough to realize that population densities in this country are too high to exist without some governmental presence.

For the record I despise the ‘Bushies’, and all the other Republicans that think that party loyalty is more important than upholding the ideals of the constitution. (For the record, I also despise Democrats that do so as well.) But there is one Republican candidate for President that is reviving my high school nostalgia for the republical party as an ideal: Ron Paul

Hid voting record is consistently in-line with the ideals set out in the Constitution, and he speaks what he knows to be true and doesn’t back down just to save a little face. Watch this interview. He is given the chance, several times, to back away from statements that he made, that were accurate but not ‘party line’, and he stands firm. There are NO other Republican candidates willing to do that. (As for the Democrats, just watch any interview where Mrs. Clinton dodges questions about her vote on the Iraq war…)

The two best candidates in the race so far are Mike Gravel (D) and Ron Paul (R). If there is any real karmic justice in the Universe they will each win their respective primaries and then no matter who wins we’ll have a decent American and Human Being in the Oval Office. (My gods, I bet that room will take a five pound bag of sage to properly cleanse…)

-Chris Knight