Edwards, Kerry, Clinton…Oh my.

I know it is too early to decide on the next Democratic Presidential candidate, but I am going to get the pot boiling. I cannot help but think we are well on our way to giving the neo-cons another 4 years in the White House. Unless we get someone to step up, a real dark horse, I think we are screwed.
Now just wait a second, before you grab the pitchforks and torches, let my Frankenstein explain himself.
Edwards: I know he is the darling of many of us, but really what has he done. OK, he won one term in North Carolina. And he was the losing Vice-President candidate on 04. Great. We have Mondale with a southern accent. I know people say he won in a southern state. True, but if he did not run for president in 04, and ran for re-election instead, odds are he would have lost that seat. Instead, Erskine Bowles ran, with Edwards support, and lost.
Do we want another failed pres/VP candidate to run, again?

Kerry: Come on. Did you read what I just wrote? Am I typing to myself here? OK, he has changed his story a bit on Iraq. But there is no way he can win. The Rovians would have a field day with him, and Kerry is too slow on the counter-attack.

Clinton: As much as I think she has a decent chance at getting the nomination, I think she is too polarizing a figure. The only way to get more arch-rightwing nutters (Or as bush calls them: His Base.) out to the polls, would to nominate two guys having anal sex. Hillary would drive the rightwing moon bats to the polls in droves. And to be honest, she does not have her husbands charisma or speaking ability, and thus would pale by comparison.

Gore: I want Gore to run. But 2000 will haunt him and prevent him from running. I am not sure if he could win, but I would love to see him try. He basically has re-invented himself, dispelling the "Al Frankengore" image from 2000. However, can he win as an enviromental liberal? Maybe, if Houston gets wiped off the map by a Level 7 hurricane. (My dream is that Houston gets hit, floods and they have to send all the conservative refugees to San Fransisco. Then the gay mayor is overheard saying "You don't think they are going to stay here, do you? I mean, it is a lot nicer here than they are used too... That place is like Hell's Outhouse.")

I will continue this over the next few days, as I sort my thoughts out.

Why time begin at the Big Bang

The Big Bang was the granddaddy of all vacuum fluctuations and it was caused by the fact that the space-time continuum had just started. At the very moment that time began to exist, there was almost zero uncertainty in time (the uncertainty in time can't be larger than the amount of time that has existed).
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle provides a quantitative relationship between the uncertainties of the hypothetical infinitely precise measurements of p and x as measured by the sizes of their distributions in the following way: If the particle state is such that the first measurement yields a dispersion of values Δx, then the second measurement will have a distribution of values whose dispersion Δp is at least inversely proportional to Δx.
The other formulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the product of the uncertainties in time and energy has to be at least as large as planks constant divided by 2 pi.
dT*dE >= h/2pi
dE >= h/(2pi*dT)
So if dT is very, very tiny (nearly zero), then dE is very, very large (nearly infinite).
A nearly infinite uncertainty in energy requires a nearly infinite amount of energy available. That much energy makes a bang....a very BIG BANG.
Cause and effect are properties of time. If there is no time, then cause and effect do not exist. So, the substrate for cause and effect (time) cannot have a cause. Asking: "what caused the Universe" is like asking: "What is the square root of green?” It has all the right parts of a question, but it is completely unintelligible.