SPECIAL FEATURE: The odds have shifted

So, you might be thinking, Mr. Tweed, are you seriously posting twice in the same day? What has gotten into you, man?

Well, as you know, I would never post twice in the same day unless I had a very good reason to. And a very good reason, I have indeed. Yes, I read a very interesting article on the Daily Kos, which I think warranted good enough reason to change my odds. I won't change the presidential odds, because I don't think those are changed significantly by this argument, but this very well thought-out article gives me reason to change my odds. If he is right, 4 MORE YEARS, BITCHEZZZZZZZ!!!!!!! Yes, that's right, he laid out the argument that Michele will win the primary. I completely agree with some of his points. Others, I'm not so sure about, but I'll buy. In a nutshell, he lays out the argument that she will win Iowa and Mitt Romney will win New Hampshire, but there are a lot of very conservative states as well as caucus states in the early few, and caucus states tend to go for the more socially conservative candidate because of the demographics of the voters. Mitt Romney is, all and all, a pretty moderate Republican (he is, after all, from Massachusetts), and he'll get grilled for passing what is basically exactly the same as "Obamacare," so he'll suffer tremendously in the more conservative states, and, according to the writer of this article, the more moderate states have suffered a pretty good blow to their delegation, and as a result, Michele should be able to pull it out. If you want to see the article, here it is: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/27/988434/-Why-Michele-Bachmann-will-be-the-GOP-nominee

As of now, my ranking of who will win the primary:

1. Michele Bachmann: 48.4%.

2. Mitt Romney: 18.1%.

3. Tim Pawlenty: 14.2%.

4. Ron Paul: 6.3%.

5. Rick Santorum: 6.2%

6. Herman Cain: 2.2%..

7. Gary Johnson: 1.3%.

8. Jon Huntsman: 0.7%

9. Newt Gingrich: .0000001%.

10. Fred Karger: .000000001%.

11. Jefferson Davis: .00000000001%. They probably would if he wasn't dead.

Other: 2.59999989899%

Michele Bachmann

I know, this is like the third time I've put off writing about Ron Paul... It turns out he's not crazy enough (Oh my...). Another reason that I've put off writing about him is that I've taken up a new hobby! Yes, that's right, I've been trolling Michele Bachmann's facebook page! Now, I've learned quite a bit from this endeavor. First of all, Michele Bachmann is absolutely fucking batshit insane! Well, I guess, to be fair, I already knew that. For example, the other day, she was in Waterloo, IA, and she mentioned how great it was to be in the birthplace of the legendary actor (and Republican), John Wayne. Except John Wayne's birthplace is 300 miles from Waterloo, in Winterset. Waterloo was, however, the hometown of John Wayne Gacy, who was a serial killer. It's not any better that Michele herself happened to have been born in Waterloo. Not only that, but her Politifact profile is downright embarrassing, with an astounding one true statement, but eleven false statements, and seven pants on fire. Now, accordingly, her supporters are about as batshit insane as she is. Here is a jewel from Bachmann supporter Paul Kramowski: "‎*** NOTE: PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM THE OBAMA MEDIA...THE NEED YOU ALOT MORE THEN YOU NEED THEM, AMEN? REMEMBER KATY CURIC WHAT WITCH." Another intelligent and insightful statement comes from a supporter named Mitchell Arnstein, who says, "Obama plans to rule by executive order in 2012, this must not happen as it will let him have Dictatorship powers!" Ya, whatever. Maybe you should mention to those nice men in white coats. Now, even though Michele and her supporters are completely fucking insane, that doesn't stop her from running a campaign without saying anything at all. Let's take a look at a few of her facebook statuses:

"The more America learns about Obamacare, the more evidence we have of its failures. Stand with me as I fight to repeal Obamacare."

"After our announcement, it's no surprise that Democrats are nervous. Just hours after my speech, the Obama machine launched a dishonest attack on our constitutional conservative agenda. Click the link above to make a donation & help me defend myself."

"My voice is part of a movement to take back our country, and now I want to take that voice of constitutional conservatives to the White House. Click “like” if you’re ready to get to work, and join me in making Barack Obama a one-term president."

"Ready to make Barack Obama a one-term president? Join me today. Click "like" if you'll tune into the live video stream of my campaign kickoff this morning via KWWL.com."

"Today, our campaign to take America back will begin in Iowa. Click "like" if this Des Moines Register poll has you ready to start the hard work of making Barack Obama a one-term president."

"It’s going to be hard work to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Click “like” if you’ll share the Weekly Standard’s profile about me with your Facebook friends to help grow Team Bachmann."

Maybe it's just me, but I think I might be sensing a theme here. Just a thought. But seriously, where is the substance. She can't just run a campaign based on "Well, I'm not Obama." Guess what! I'm not Obama either!!! Pick me!!!! I happen to be a fan of Obama, though, and if you can see through Michele Bachmann's lies, then you'll see that he's really a pretty good guy. I think the real question, though, is whether Michele Bachmann is crazier than Sarah Palin.

I have not seen enough significant change in the primary to be able to make any changes to my odds, so the odds from Newt's post can carry over to this one.

SPECIAL FEATURE: Strategic oil reserves, etc.

So, I know, I should be writing about Ron Paul, but I didn't really feel like it, because I really felt like writing about oil (yet people still don't understand why I would make a terrible presidential candidate...). So, recently the president has decided to tap the strategic oil reserves in order to alleviate the rise in gas prices. In theory, it should help the economy and make life easier, but I can't help but be a bit disappointed by this decision. Maybe it's because I don't drive, but I feel like, by making gas prices cheaper, we're only extending the problem. The big oil lobby is super powerful, but they can only go within the bounds of what congress can do. Now, I am a huge proponent of science and technology and such. Congress can fund science, and that would be incredibly helpful, but science does not need congressional funding to progress. Now, the first thing to address is that, though oil is being constantly formed, it takes millions of years to form, and it does not take us millions of years to pump it. In other words, we only have so much oil, and it's going fast. Now, basic supply and demand curves will tell you that that means that prices are going to go up. How high do they have to get before mainstream (non-environmentalist) Americans realize that it's not the best way to power our cars? Well, if we keep going on this trend, we will end up with a societal reversal. Henry Ford made cars affordable, and I guess Big Oil is making them unaffordable again. Then again, there is no way that we can keep the average American able to afford to drive without a huge societal change. With what is currently scientifically possible, it is easy to make environmentally sustainable cars. By the way, (tangent alert) I'm not talking about electric or hybrid cars. Where do you think that electricity comes from? In Oregon, it's a little better since we use a lot of hydro power, but still, the batteries are made of plastic (AKA oil) and nasty chemicals are have to be replaced every 10 or so years, and they are shipped in on gas-guzzling airplanes from eastern Canada. I've heard every explanation from them being better than regular cars but still not good to that they're worse than Hummers. In any case, best case scenario, they only sustain us for a little longer. We will actually have to change how we think about cars. Unfortunately, batteries are the only way to store energy, but we can change how we think about batteries once we change how we think about charging batteries. Now, one idea that I've had since I was about 4, and I still don't get why they don't implement, is that we should attach wind turbines to cars. Cars create their own wind, don't they? If we do that in conjunction with solar panels and thermopiles and really any environmentally or mechanically-based power source, all hooked up to batteries, I don't think that gas would be necessary anymore. But cars would have to look different. They would likely all have to be more aerodynamic, and they would have to have all sorts of gadgets on the outside that might be off-putting to car lovers. In addition, they might not go as fast. That will take a lot of getting used to, especially in America (besides Berkeley) where 1:00 actually means 1:00. It can be done, but it will take getting used to. In other words, it will take patience. Now, we're Americans. If there's one thing we can't stand, it's being patient and getting used to something and living with less. Jimmy Carter's presidency was killed when he said that Americans would have to live with less. But we're at a point where we have to choose between living with less or living with way less. The option of giving nothing up is gone. Now, of course, I looked at this from a solely economic and practical standpoint. I could go into all of the environmental issues which I am really interested in, but that would be unnecessary at this point. The point is, we're never going to switch to sustainable cars until gas prices become ludicrous, because not enough Americans care about the environment or what will happen in the future. So, instead of caving in, we should let gas prices get ludicrous, and so then we might find something better.

Newt Gingrich

Oh boy... An interesting fellow, that Newt Gingrich is... You may have heard of his campaign staffers resigning en masse (I love how when the media wants something to sound important, they put it in French). I think we all know that they only did that because he was secretly using another campaign staff. I mean, he has plenty of experience doing that to his wives, so it's only logical. Honestly, do I even need to lay out a case against him? The man is nuts! After cheating on his 746th wife, he claimed that he did so because he loved his country so much. Is he able to take himself seriously? Look, I don't think that cheating on your spouse should automatically get you ejected from politics forever. Look at Bill Clinton, for example. He did a great job, as did the wife who he cheated on. However, if you repeatedly cheat on your multiple wives, then maybe your responsibility and honesty should be questioned. America also has a religious strain that could cripple him immensely. Not because he's not religious (although he did leave the Southern Baptist church to become Catholic), but because most religions do not approve of adultery. Newt Gingrich is an expert adulterer. Now, the religious strain is slowly but surely diminishing. The troubling thing, though, is that we also have a much more disturbing strain that only seems to be getting bigger, if anything. That would the the anti-intellectual strain that elected Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, as well as George W. Bush in 2000 and various other elections. It's sort of the "just like us" ideal. Now, I find myself to be reasonably intelligent, but I want my president to be way smarter than me. Now, Americans as a whole tend to think that they're really smart, and they want to have a president who is like them. They see intelligent people as elitist and disconnected. I can imagine some hick saying, "Wayull, there is that high falootin' Barack HOOsain Obama, but he'all Harvard edjamacaited and stuff, and he lives in a fancy house with only one wife, and he dun understayund what us avverge Amurricans want!" Look. Just because you have a 5th grade understanding of economics and government does not mean that you know better than the president how to solve the Middle east. If you're so sure, how about you run yourself. Excuse my tangent, but my point is that people like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are "avverge Amurricans" and they appeal to the masses, whereas Obama is an out of touch elitist, which is exactly what we need as president.

As of now, my ranking of who will win the primary:

1. Mitt Romney: 31.7%.

2. Tim Pawlenty: 26.9%.

3. Ron Paul: 13.6%. I still don't think he will win, because he's far too libertarian for the general public, but according to a poll of TIME readers, I could be wrong. Over 50% of readers expect him to win the primary. I completely disagree, but I've been wrong before. Once. Okay, not really, but I suppose that it is technically possible for me to be wrong. Technically.

4. Michele Bachmann: 11.2%.

5. Herman Cain: 6.3%.

6. Rick Santorum: 5.1%.

7. Gary Johnson: 2.1%.

8. Newt Gingrich: .00001%. His fundraising staff left too. He's over a million dollars in debt. He won't survive 2 primaries.

9. Fred Karger: .0000001%.

10. Thomas Jefferson: .000000001%. He is the perfect embodiment of conservative values, but the Virginia statute of religious freedom might be off-putting to some voters, as would the fact that he had an illegitimate child with someone who was of a different race! He would be way higher if he wasn't dead.

Other: 3.099989899%

Odds of beating Obama should he or she win the nomination:

Romney: 1:7.

Pawlenty: 1:2.

Bachmann: 1:54.

Cain: 1:28.

Santorum: 1:13.

Paul: 1:431,226. Apparently I thought too highly of the General American Public. I still think, though, that social conservatives would be appalled by his very libertarian stance.

Johnson: 1:4.

Gingrich: 1:1,734,168.

Karger: 1:???.

Jefferson: 34:1. Even dead, poorly educated liberals and all teabaggers (including the 4 educated ones) idolize him, and so he would win with easy bipartisan support.

EDIT: I just learned that Jon Huntsman is now an official candidate. I won't add him to this post, but I'll get him in the next one. So don't hate me.

Herman Cain

So, with the 2012 election coming up, and with my staunch no-stupidity policy for elections, I thought it would be fun to take a look at who is running and how nutso they are. Besides, I've been having some insomnia issues recently, and I feel like looking at the current Republican field could help with that.

So, I felt like an appropriate place to start would be Herman Cain, mostly because he's more interesting than many of the others (you probably shouldn't even bother reading when I get to Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty). Now, Mr. Cain is an enigma, not because he's a racist nutjob (they all kind of are), but because he's black, yet still a racist nutjob. Now, I think he'll use this to his advantage in many ways, but I also think it will backfire on him.

Now, let's get one thing quite clear. Herman Cain IS a racist. Just look at this quote:

The role of Muslims in American society is for them to be allowed to practice their religion freely, which is part of our First Amendment. The role of Muslims in America is not to convert the rest of us to the Muslim religion. That I resent. Because we are a Judeo-Christian nation, from the fact that 85 percent of us are self-described Christians, or evangelicals, or practicing the Jewish faith. Eighty-five percent. One percent of the practicing religious believers in this country are Muslim.And so I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them. Now, I know that there are some peaceful Muslims who don't go around preaching or practicing that. Well, unfortunately, we can't sit back and tolerate the radical ones simply because we know that there are some of them who don't believe in that aspect of the Muslim religion. So their role is to be allowed to practice their religion freely, just like we should be allowed to practice our religion freely, and not try to convert the rest of us.

Well, Herm, I see exactly one accurate thing in that quote, and that is where you said, "the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion." You did a very good job of displaying that you know absolutely nothing about it. Rather, some people believe that, but that is true of nearly all religions, CHRISTIANITY INCLUDED. Ever hear of the crusades? And, I might add, those people who knock on your door to get you to convert are most certainly not Muslims. So, unless their only method of conversion is by making delicious food (which I could totally get behind), then Mr. Cain is on the wrong track here. Now, the problem with this is that he is blatantly racist, but Americans are idiots, and so we get the idea that a black guy couldn't be racist. This is clearly false, but Herman Cain can capitalize on that and be as racist as the little void he calls his heart desires.

Now, the other issue is the issue of the black vote. I could potentially see a full swing, a half swing, or no swing at all. Personally, I think there might be a very small swing, but most black people will stay faithful to Obama. Here's why: First of all, black people (for the most part) LOVE Obama. They saw him as a huge inspiration in 2008, and they still sort of see him as their savior, so to speak, and for a good reason. He was the first black president. That is a huge barrier to break. Now, should Cain win in 2012, he would become the second black president, which is not a particularly exciting honor. The barrier has already been broken. They still will like the first guy. Second of all, should Cain win the primary, he will be running in the general election against another black guy. That should even it out, but here's the thing, when it's been two white guys, black people have been overwhelmingly Democratic since FDR. Sure, they came out in droves for Obama, and we can praise the lord that Obama isn't a Republican, but if he's still running, then there is no compelling reason for them to switch over. Finally, a fairly large and dramatically increasing percentage of black people are becoming (or already are) Muslim, and, as we can tell, Cain is actively trying to get Muslims to not vote for him.

One complicating factor that Cain might try to capitalize on is that both of his parents were black, whereas Obama's mother did happen to be white. This might swing a few people, but I still don't think it will be a problem. My reasoning for that is that the title of "first president with two black parents" does not sound nearly as impressive as "first black president," which is an honor that only Obama will ever have. Not only that, but black people will still associate him as such, and they love him for that.

So, all and all, it seems unlikely that any effort that Herman Cain will make to capitalize on his race will either backfire or be highly ineffective. What that leaves is policy, and we have established that he is nuts, so that doesn't leave much of a chance. To compound that, it appears that most American racists happen to be Republicans, so that hurts Cain even more. So, I do not see him as a threat.

As of now, my ranking of who will win the primary (to be updated in each successive post):

1. Mitt Romney: 36.7%. I don't know how many of you have seen the ads for the Lifewise health plan of Oregon (I think it exists outside of Oregon), and their slogan is "boringly good." That fits Romney well. Not to say I think he's good, but he is the most moderate and diplomatic of the bunch.

2. Tim Pawlenty: 31.9%. Boringly good fits him too, but he's even more boring, and he has somewhat less name recognition.

3. Michele Bachmann: 11.2%. She's batshit insane, but she's not boring at all. If the Republicans decide on the most charismatic candidate, it would be her, but she is also very polarizing. Though the tea party loves her, the silent majority (ALERT: Nixon term) of Republicans are not as excited about her, partially because they're misogynist, but mostly because she's batshit insane.

4. Herman Cain: 6.3%.

5. Rick Santorum: 5.1%. Who? Nobody has ever heard of him, but he's radical and crazy and doesn't have much charisma either. Not a winning combination.

6. Ron Paul: 3.6%. He has a lot of support, but he is distinctly libertarian. I don't think that enough Republicans are okay with heroin legalization to vote him in, but he gets reelected in his district, as does his son, so he's got something.

7. Gary Johnson: 2.1%. He doesn't appear to be taking this very seriously, and it could really hurt him, as he has shot himself in the foot a bit, and people don't know him, leaving it to the media to report on him, and they won't be so kind. So if he wants a chance, he needs to come in full force.

8. Newt Gingrich: .001%. Seriously, does anyone like him?

9. Fred Karger: .0000001%. You chose the wrong party, Mr. Karger.

10. John C. Calhoun: .0000000000001%. Don't count him out yet!

Other: 3.0989998999999%

Odds of beating Obama should he or she win the nomination:

Romney: 1:7. He's a pretty strong character, but he doesn't have the dynamic campaigning ability that Obama has. In addition, as racism declines in America, interestingly enough, the support of religion, and especially Mormonism, is diminishing, and so I don't see us electing a Mormon president.

Pawlenty: 1:2. He is boring, but he hasn't shot himself in the foot, and he's not Mormon. There is plenty of dislike for Obama, and very little dislike for Pawlenty. But if he doesn't get a personality, he's screwed.

Bachmann: 1:54. She is too polarizing. She'll split the Republican party and that never wins.

Cain: 1:28.

Santorum: 1:13. If he plays his cards right, he could strike a balance. One wrong move, though, could derail him.

Paul: 1:5,000,000. Even if the party would stick together under Bachmann, they sure wouldn't under Paul. I could almost guarantee a socially conservative third party candidate who would be a deal breaker for Paul.

Johnson: 1:4. He's less radical than Santorum, giving him a bit of a benefit, but we'll have to see if his campaign goes anywhere.

Gingrich: 1:334,226. He's already destroyed himself.Karger: 1:???. He's much more liberal than Obama, so we would see some weird voting patterns. But I don't think we have to worry about him.

Calhoun: 1:5. Would be 5:1 if Calhoun wasn't dead.

So, all and all, Obama has pretty good chances because the Republicans all suck, but I'm not taking it for granted.

English class

At my school (and most schools), we are required to take 4 years of English, and 3 years each of social studies, math, and science. Now, although I do hate English, I promise that this rant is not fueled (completely) by my hatred for the subject. Now, I get it, English helps us write and talk and stuff, but seriously, it's 4 years of exactly the same thing. In contrast, Freshman year, we learned about world history and geography, I learned about geometry, and I learned about biology. Sophomore year, I learned about US History and Government, Algebra 2, and honors-level chemistry. Junior year, I am learning about AP-level US history, Pre-calc, Physics, and AP-level chemistry. Next year, I am poised to learn about AP-level Government, AP-level Calculus, and AP-level Physics. In contrast, freshman year, I took freshman English. Sophomore year, I took sophomore English. This year, I am taking Junior English. Any guesses as to what I am taking next year?

Now, a careful reader might have noticed something in my last few sentences. I said that I "learned" history, math, and science. In contrast, I said that I "took" English. I emphasize that because I walk in to all of these other classes every single day, and walk out knowing something new. I feel smarter. In contrast, when I walk out of English class, I just feel like more of a smartass. I love to hate English, and my teacher sort of knows that. I don't mind the books, I rather like most of them, actually, but symbolism? Give me a break. Gothic romanticism makes me want to vomit. Description is the root of all evil (I proposed a new law once in English class: no more than two adjectives per sentence). I don't want a mental picture; I want a goddamn story! But this isn't about my opinions. My point is, I have opinions in English class, but I don't really learn anything, or at least nothing of use. The common argument is that you learn about literature and such. My response is always, "so you learn about fake stuff." I mean that mostly as a joke, but not entirely. For example, we learn about Shakespeare. Even my English teacher doesn't like Romeo and Juliet. Everyone in the world knows the basic story, and any other part is completely insignificant. Nobody will ever give a shit about Benvolio or Mercutio, and if they do, you can go tell them to go back to tend to their cats. Another one of my anti-English crusades came last year when we were forced to read stories from the bible. Yes, I understand that there are biblical references in almost everything, in this case, ignorance is bliss. It is very rare that I would say anything like that, but I hold a very strong belief that students should not have to read religious texts in a public school. If it must be done, it is worse that we just read one. We didn't read the Qur'an. And if you will excuse my heresy, the bible is very poorly written as well.

I have been lucky at my school to have had two very good English teachers (my teacher this year is the same person who was my freshman English teacher), so I don't have a terrible experience, but I can't help but notice the irony that the single class which we are required to take 4 years of is the one in which 95% of what we learn is fake shit. Look. I don't care what my name is (and you will only get this if you know my real name, so don't even try to understand if you don't), I will never be a poet. I will never write poetry ever once I'm out of school, save for perhaps an occasional haiku or limerick. I probably won't read much fiction either. I understand that there are people who are interested in that stuff, and so I'm not suggesting that English shouldn't be taught. I'm merely suggesting that 4 required years is rather excessive.

Science Bowl

It occurred to me that I didn't put one of my most positive experiences in my 23 things post. This is a problem. I think I am a very stable person, and there is very little that gets me very upset or excited. Science bowl gets me really excited.

So, let's briefly go over what it is, since I just love talking about it. In the months leading up to the science bowl (which is, of course, the day before the Super Bowl), the team meets weekly after school and, with slight variety, does sort of an informal practice science bowl, where one of us reads questions and everyone else answers them, with variety as to how strictly the rules are enforced. Then, sometime around November or December, we find out how many teams we can have. It's usually one or two, or maybe three if we have enough people and we get super duper lucky, which is pretty unlikely. This year we had two, but it worked out since we didn't really have to cut anyone. It did, however, mean that our second team was almost exclusively freshman, which is good for some things, but not good for them this year. Anyway, we pick our teams after we know how many we get. Then, come the first Saturday of February, we all wake up at an ungodly hour and carpool to the University of Portland. Once you get there, you collect all of your free shit (and they give you a lot) and you go to the opening session in the majestic Buckley auditorium, where you find yourself in a room of approximately 85% males and approximately 75% Asian people. There, you have your team pictures taken. Then you sit down with your (free) breakfast and free shit and watch Leilani Russell give a little motivational and logistical speech. They do a big, loud roll call, and I try to be as loud as possible. I can think of one baseball game in modern history in which I have tried to be as loud as possible, and that was by necessity. Science bowl is the only time I really do that by choice. Anyway, then the coaches go and get their schedules, and you go to your first round (if you have one at 9:30). You have four rounds, which are round robin, meaning you play all of them, no matter how much you lose. So, that's where you pray to God that you get easy teams. The way that the rounds work is that you have four people in at a time (your teams very often have five people in them. When that is the case, you have one sit out and they switch with another person halfway through). They read a question (sample round 1 [easy] questions found here: http://www.scied.science.doe.gov/nsb/hs/PDF/ROUND1.PDF), and you buzz in if you know the answer. You may not confer with your teammates during a tossup question. If you get the question right, your team receives 4 points and gets the chance to answer a bonus question, worth 10 points. Your team may confer during a bonus question, and the other team does not have a chance to answer it. If you got the original tossup question wrong, the other team gets a chance to buzz in. If you interrupted the question and then proceeded to get it wrong (if you get it right, the same rules apply as if you had not interrupted), four points are awarded to the other team, the question will be reread in its entirety, and the other team will have the chance to answer. If you buzz in for a tossup question and then answer it without being recognized, four points will be awarded to the other team and they will have the opportunity to answer. For multiple choice questions, either the letter of the answer or answer itself may be accepted, but if you choose to give the answer itself, it must be worded exactly as given. As you can tell, I have heard the rules a couple times. Anyway, after the four round robin rounds, you go back to the auditorium for lunch (they have a mobile Round Table Pizza come and they crank out like 70 million different pizzas) and a show thing. They recognize the all-stars. The last three years, we have had all-stars on one of our teams. I fear we won't next year. Two years ago, they had an all-star round, pitting the all-stars against minor local celebrities, such as weathermen or news anchors. The all-stars killed them. Starting last year, they did away with the all-star round (which is a bit of a pity, but I also like what they do now), and instead had a guest speaker. Last year it was a "golly-ologist" from OMSI who did some pretty awesome things with physics. This year, it was astronaut Stan Love. They were both awesome. After that, Leilani comes up and announces the teams that make it to Double Elimination. Basically, they take the teams with the highest win percentage from Round Robin. Since there are only 4 rounds, the tie breaker is points, though I don't know if it is total points or net points. If you don't make it, you either watch your other team dominate if they made it, you do an engineering challenge thing, which I've never done, or you go home, which I've never done either. Then you do Double Elimination. There is a bracket, and you can lose twice before going home. The questions are harder, as are the teams you are playing against. And that is my description in a nutshell. Well, maybe a clamshell. If it's a giant clam. Uh, you get the picture.

So, you might be wondering, why do I love it so much? Well, first of all, it's AWESOME! Also, I get to be a complete and total nerd and not only not get judged, but actually get embraced and even outdone. Also, they give us not only a bunch of free shit, and I'm Jewish, so I'm totally down with that. Not only do we get the aforementioned free shit, they also have a nearly endless supply of free soda. I usually drink responsibly, but if I can have 27 Dr Peppers once a year, you bet I'll have 27 Dr Peppers. Okay, 27 might be an exaggeration, but I do enjoy me some Dr Pepper. Also, we have plenty of running jokes. One such running joke is the infamous short kid...

Short kid is my age and he attends Grant high school. I hate him with a passion. When I was just a freshman, I was sitting in the front row at the Buckley auditorium, watching the semifinal (the first rounds are in Franz hall, but by semifinals, or maybe quarterfinals, they move it to Buckley). Our team one had made it there, and this was competing for a shiny trophy. They were pitted against Grant, an inner city Portland school. One of the people on their team was this short, unassuming, white freshman. You might think that Grant killed us, but that is not true. Short kid killed us. He was the smartest frosh I had ever seen. Ever since, I have hated him with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. I have never had to play against him, but I feel like if I ever do, I will give something of either the Inigo Montoya sort ("Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.") or of the Lone Starr sort ("So, at last we meet for the first time for the last time."), and then sheepishly run away. The funny thing, also, is that he's not very short anymore, but I still call him short kid, even though I actually do know his real name. Anywho, this year, I saw the Grant team in their ugly blue "General Knowledge" T-shirts, but I didn't see short kid, and I was really excited. Then, as I was sitting in Buckley, I saw him walk in. I swore. Very loudly. He didn't hear me, but it was still hilarious. To make matters worse, his team sat right behind ours (here is a picture of him staring me down. I'm not in this picture, but I'm sitting exactly where he is staring: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/education/Science_bowl/pics/11-HS-Gallery/SB-11-HS-0044.jpg). Anyway, I have a friend who goes to Grant and she's actually friends with him, and she thinks it's hilarious that I hate him.

Now, Short kid is no longer the only malicious midget at the Science bowl. Yes, this year we encountered an entire team of sinister shorties. We were in double elimination, and we were pitted against Westview-2. We figured that Westview was probably a challenge since they beat us last year, but it was team 2, so we didn't have too much to worry about. Our fears were further quelled when they introduced themselves as entirely freshmen. They were all Asian, but that is a common occurrence at the Science Bowl. Anyway, it goes without saying that that was our biggest loss of the day, by far. After the round, I asked what math one of the kids was in. Calculus, he says! I'm a fucking Junior, and I'm in pre-calc, and I'm a year ahead! That makes him 5 years ahead! FIVE FREAKING YEARS!!!! What's perhaps more upsetting is that they didn't even get in the top 3. We looked respectable (though we did lose) against the winners, but we looked like horse shit against Westview-2. So, we get to deal with them for a while. A couple days later, I was talking to my physics teacher (our coach), and he was saying that he talked to their coach, and apparently the school is running out of options for these kids. So maybe they'll all graduate three years early, who knows...

Anyway, Science Bowl is an amazing experience. I love it, and I will be super duper depressed after next year, which will be my last. Even if there is a college version, it just won't match up to the BPA regionals. We have the biggest and the best region, even if we never win at nationals. We have the most fun. We have the short kid who, though I hate, I really do love to have there to joke about. I love my team. I love the 27 million pizzas. I love the free shit. I love the Dr Pepper. So, with that, I shall be asking my school administration if I may be held back four years. Not really, but I probably will volunteer there if I'm able to make it up to Oregon that weekend, or at the regional science bowl that my college is nearest to, though it's just not the same when it's not BPA.

And by the way, if you were wondering, the free waterbottles they gave us were, in fact, BPA free :-D...