The future that wasn't

December 11, 2008 4:01 AM

The 10 worst predictions for 2008

#7 isn't actually a prediction, and #8 could still happen, but it's still a collection of Wrongness. Bill Kristol's record remains perfect.

posted by Kirth Gerson (82 comments total)

Bill Kristol has a New York Times column. Why?

Well, competition's increasingly stiff in the newspaper business, and until bringing Kristol on board, the Times had lost readership because of its elitist refusal to run a funny page.

The Washington Post runs four pages of comic, including "Garfield", "Zits", and "Dennis the Menace"; the Times counters with the unintentional hilarity of 500 sneering words by Bill Kristol.
posted by orthogonality at 4:17 AM on December 11, 2008 [15 favorites has favorites]

I knew Kristol had been wrong about Hilary winning. What I didn't realize was that he was also wrong about her losing. And on top of all that, he has a face you can't look at without wanting to punch him. The man is a gold mine, if by "gold" you mean "shit" and "mine" you mean "pile".
posted by DU at 4:25 AM on December 11, 2008 [14 favorites has favorites]

Wow. Look at that list. Look at it. On so many levels, it has been a fucking awesome, convention-destroying year. Now where did I stash that paint thinner? Daddy needs to drink his breakfast...
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:30 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

....and then all ten of these people were fired or ridiculed into resigning, and we never heard from them again!

What.
posted by rokusan at 4:33 AM on December 11, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

What, no hate for Charles Krauthammer? That guys worth less than half of one Kristol, and his mention on this list wasn't even his worst fuck-up. That was his his assured pronouncement shortly after the RNC convention that 'Sarah Palin steals Obama's fading spotlight' and she would be beginning of the end for him.

I also don't like the way he leans to the left. Physically, I mean. Maybe he has back problems, or maybe he was punched by too many jocks in high school, but he's always leaning to one side on TV.
posted by bluejayk at 4:41 AM on December 11, 2008

I'm not sure #3 makes any sense, one oil tanker hijacking is news sure but I'm not convinced it has “seriously upset traffic" or "seriously disrupt[ed] oil shipments.”
posted by Skorgu at 4:42 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"The LHC was turned on in September, and it appears that we are still here."

Well, that's not really fair, is it, considering that the LHC isn't actually operational right now? Nor would a world-devouring black hole have to appear within only 3 months for the prediction to be proven true. Of course, I don't have any expectation it will be, but it seems a bit much to call that one of the worst predictions of the year.
posted by Arasithil at 4:43 AM on December 11, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

bluejayk writes "Maybe he has back problems, or maybe he was punched by too many jocks in high school, but he's always leaning to one side on TV."

He's been paralyzed and confined to a wheel chair for nearly four decades. That said, I used to respect him. Now frankly, whenever I see his byline, I immediately discount it as more shilling for Israel, the nation Krauthammer loves so blindly he can never acknowledge it having even the slightest flaw.
posted by orthogonality at 4:50 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Am I the only person who looks at Henry Paulson and thinks... with the proper hat and jacket, that man could be Colonel Klink?

It's uncanny.
posted by mephron at 4:50 AM on December 11, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]

International news publication criticizes other international news publications, silent on own gaffes. News at 11.
posted by honest knave at 4:53 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Bill Kristol's column in the NY Times pretty much sums up what's wrong with liberalism in America. It's not the notion that everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the weak-kneed equalizing notion that everyone's opinion is worth something, or ought to be respected.

Republicans seem much more willing to call a spade a spade, while Democrats/liberals seem to kind of waver, wondering if they are being too disrespectful or closed-minded in dismissing obvious bullshit too fast.

While I did benefit from this tendency in college, getting 'A's in my 2 English courses due to the fact that any sufficiently-backed thesis for a paper was considered "OK", I always appreciated that Hemingway dismissed out-of-hand any notion that "Old Man and the Sea" was a metaphor rather than simply a story about an old man who goes fishing.
posted by explosion at 4:53 AM on December 11, 2008 [12 favorites has favorites]

explosion: Isn't the open-mindedness and rationality the very thing that makes the Democrats a more viable party? Hemingway also dismissed out of hand the notion that mint juleps count as drinking.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:58 AM on December 11, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]

The LHC one is very unfair. Not that I think it's worth worrying about, but here's what he says:

“There is a real possibility of creating destructive theoretical anomalies such as miniature black holes, strangelets and deSitter space transitions. These events have the potential to fundamentally alter matter and destroy our planet.”

He says there's a possibility and a potential. Has he been proven wrong? Do we now know there is no possibility and no potential? He's concerned about a small probability. Evading that probability doesn't make him right, it just makes us lucky.

I mean, Al Gore has been making basically the same prediction, that the world will end if we don't shut off a big machine. The world hasn't ended yet, so Al Gore must be a Chicken Little, right? (Boy, I hope this doesn't bring the denier idiots out of the woodwork...)
posted by DU at 4:58 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Oh, I've got lots of hate for Krauthammer. Every time I read his stuff in the paper, it doesn't just seem stupid or wrong- it strikes me as dangerously, maliciously wrong.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:59 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

[/me holds out crystal ball] Here, you try.
posted by not_on_display at 5:00 AM on December 11, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

And on top of all that, he has a face you can't look at without wanting to punch him.

Ah, the Germans have a word for that.

Backpfeifengesicht
posted by chillmost at 5:05 AM on December 11, 2008 [31 favorites has favorites]

The LHC one is very unfair.

Especially because they haven't even gotten the thing up and running at full tilt yet.

Well, at least my prediction that this would be the year women began to notice me came true. Who knew it would be because of that?
posted by Pollomacho at 5:13 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Dick Morris had some doozies this year. I remember two standouts - "Sarah Palin will change the race and now Obama can't win!" and, later in the race, "Obama will win [x number] states, including Arkansas and Tennessee." Classic. And he don't mind, sucking on toes!
posted by billysumday at 5:19 AM on December 11, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

You can't open with Kristol. Nothing will be as colossal a screw-up as that.
posted by boo_radley at 5:19 AM on December 11, 2008

boo_radley writes "You can't open with Kristol. Nothing will be as colossal a screw-up as that."

Well, except the unprovoked wars Kristol cheerleads for.
posted by orthogonality at 5:25 AM on December 11, 2008

well, yes, in a larger sense, Kristol is pretty insignificant. But in the context of the list, he's at the top.
posted by boo_radley at 5:31 AM on December 11, 2008

When does he find time to talk shit about the LHC? Isn't Al Gore busy trying to stop Manbearpig? Or was that just a South Park episode?
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:51 AM on December 11, 2008

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

I predict more of these next year.
posted by mandal at 5:55 AM on December 11, 2008

Keeping with the Wrongness theme: The 10 most inane bits of election punditry.
posted by ninebelow at 5:56 AM on December 11, 2008

Ben Stein was telling people to buy Merrill Lynch stock a few months before it collapsed on FOX News.

Good times.
posted by bardic at 6:08 AM on December 11, 2008

not_on_display: "[/me holds out crystal ball] Here, you try."

Well that's the point, isn't it? I could do just as well as these well paid "experts" who act like they can see the future but seldom get called out when their predictions prove to be nonsense.
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

...their predictions prove to be nonsense.

If their predictions are nonsense they should be called out before the fact. If they are just wrong...well, waddya gonna do? (If they are wronger than average, then fire them.)
posted by DU at 6:16 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

I predict more of these next year.

We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.
posted by Spatch at 6:25 AM on December 11, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]

#10's too easy. Bill Kristol's never been right about anything.
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:32 AM on December 11, 2008

Could make a top-ten list just of Kristol's worst predictions of 2008. #1: Sarah Palin.

We'll see how his prediction of Palin becoming the next FDR hold up (why, he lost as VP as well - before becoming governor of NY and then President!).
posted by mammary16 at 6:36 AM on December 11, 2008

Why is Kristol's prediction the worst one? I was an Obama fan back in Dec 2006 and if you had asked me back then what Obama's odds were, I probably would have put them at about Bill Bradley's odds back in 2000. Nobody at that time could have seen how Obama was going to run just about the perfect campaign.

Given the evidence that we had at the time, all those mid-summer predictions about this subprime hoopla being no big deal strike me as far worse predictions.
posted by alidarbac at 6:44 AM on December 11, 2008

What I find interesting is that the #2 worst prediction (Jim Cramer's recommendation to hold onto Bear Stearns stock) was publicized by the Daily Show several months before Foreign Policy magazine got around to mentioning it.
posted by jonp72 at 6:53 AM on December 11, 2008

In the first month of the new year the new promised one will come forth to lead, but there will be naysayers, several idiots of feeble mind will bring forth stupid verbiage which will be believed by others of even feebler mind. In the city known as a district with no representation they will converge and board a small yellow bus and press their lips and noses to the glass and no longer will they be allowed to play with sharp things. So it is written.
posted by netbros at 6:55 AM on December 11, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Krauthammer was hammered by the War Nerd - now he's just kind of ludicrous and overinflated, like a frog puffing itself up to look bigger.

I miss the War Nerd. Obama should hire him as Chief Bastard, who's only duties are to be snide to idiots, and set him loose in the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:55 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Stopped reading when they got to Cramer. He was answering a question about the caller's INVESTMENT ACCOUNT, with Bear Stearns, not about ownership of Bear Stearns stock. And from that standpoint, he was right, that caller's money was safe.
posted by evilcolonel at 7:02 AM on December 11, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]

Krauthammer immediately followed this inaccurate forecast (Russia eventually agreed to a cease-fire and pulled out its troops several weeks later, leaving Mikheil Saakashvili’s government in place) by predicting that Ukraine would be next on Russia’s hit list and suggesting that the United States station troops there. As for Saakashvili, his approval rating was at 76 percent in September.


Ugh, Saakashvili has a 76% approval rating? I guess that's not hard when you shut down opposition TV stations. And where's his missed prediction? you know the "Shelling Russian troops would be a good idea" one. That didn't seem to work out to well.
posted by delmoi at 7:06 AM on December 11, 2008

What I find interesting is that the #2 worst prediction (Jim Cramer's recommendation to hold onto Bear Stearns stock) was publicized by the Daily Show several months before Foreign Policy magazine got around to mentioning it.

Cramer never said to hold the stock, rather, he said not to pull investment funds out of their brokerage, which was fine. Also, I'm pretty sure they're covering it now because this is their year-end roundup...
posted by delmoi at 7:08 AM on December 11, 2008

The case for shitcanning Bill Kristol
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:14 AM on December 11, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Meanwhile, Robert X. Cringely's predictions get worse every year.
posted by shii at 7:26 AM on December 11, 2008

I prefer to prophesy after the event.
posted by jquinby at 7:32 AM on December 11, 2008

"Bill Kristol's column in the NY Times pretty much sums up what's wrong with liberalism in America. It's not the notion that everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the weak-kneed equalizing notion that everyone's opinion is worth something, or ought to be respected."

No, that kind of false equivalence is more a problem of the center. But mistaking the center for "liberal" is definitely a symptom of the right.

If you're saying "what's wrong with liberalism in America" is that conservatives are mostly selfish, small-minded jackhole dissemblers coming to the public conversation in bad faith, who should just be booted to the curb -- yeah, I totally agree.
posted by fleacircus at 7:35 AM on December 11, 2008 [14 favorites has favorites]

Oil prices peaked in July at about $147 a barrel before beginning a long decline. Thanks to a decrease in demand because of the global recession, prices are now nearing the $40 mark, and some experts even see $25 as a possibility next year.

And neatly setting themselves up for next year's list
posted by mattoxic at 7:40 AM on December 11, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

These could all be Kristol. Really dudes wrong about everything. He's like a reverse Nostradomous. I hope he never tells us that there is no need to worry about nuclear war.
posted by I Foody at 7:40 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

What I find interesting is that the #2 worst prediction (Jim Cramer's recommendation to hold onto Bear Stearns stock) was publicized by the Daily Show several months before Foreign Policy magazine got around to mentioning it.

jonp72: I think it's amazing that The Daily Show has a far better institutional memory than any news program. If Prominent Politician A wholeheartedly endorses X when five years ago he virulently denounced X, you can bet the clip of his press conference from five years ago is going to show up on TDS before CNN or MSNBC or Fox or any broadcast network.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:29 AM on December 11, 2008

Oh come on, 150-200$ barrel oil didn't look like a possibility?

Yes it did. That isn't a prediction, it is a statement of fact. Since then the situation has changed dramatically, but that doesn't mean that it didn't look like it was going to go that way. Jeeze.

In summary: this list is weak.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:30 AM on December 11, 2008

Yeah, Kristol is ridiculous (and the LHC one could've been added to the list just as soon as it was uttered, really) but the Krauthammer one was the worst to me, because it was spoken with such certain confidence, setting up this "urgent" situation, for the express purpose of trying to get us into war (or a warlike state of affairs) with fucking Russia, and only that because such circumstances would've presumably favored McCain in the election.

Kristol's an idiot, but when you connect the dots with Krauthammer you see that he crosses over from stupid to evil pretty easily.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:32 AM on December 11, 2008

I predict that people who make predictions are going to develop a deep passionate hatred for the internet.
posted by srboisvert at 8:42 AM on December 11, 2008

This is why I get all my predictions from haruspices. ExtispicyNEWS: We Eviscerate, You Decide.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:49 AM on December 11, 2008

I don't understand why #2 is such an epic fail. If you're talking about Bear Stearns as an institution, yes, but I got the impression they were talking about it as a safe place for keeping your stock investments. In that case, aren't all the accounts still safe and liquid?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:53 AM on December 11, 2008

Jeebus, was Cringely even right once on that list?
posted by maxwelton at 9:04 AM on December 11, 2008

DU: He says there's a possibility and a potential. Has he been proven wrong? Do we now know there is no possibility and no potential?

Yes, we do know those things. That one is ridiculous on its face, and Navelgazer points out, should have been in there right from the moment it came out. The energies the LHC is capable of are created all the time in stars and elsewhere in our universe, and have not "fundamentally alter[ed] matter" (whatever the f that even means). And the notion that a few high-energy particles colliding could "destroy our planet" is retarded. If you've seen a nuclear fission explosion, where a whole crapload of particles are converted into their matter-equivalent energy all at once, and you have noted that the planet remains undestroyed, you pretty much have all the info needed to refute that idea.
posted by rusty at 9:14 AM on December 11, 2008

IANAPP, but I thought the predictions of DOOM!!! in re: LHC were ridiculous because of the tiny probabilities, not the impossibility of the physics.
posted by DU at 9:23 AM on December 11, 2008

I wish they'd listed someone predicting that the Mets would win the NL East.
posted by VicNebulous at 9:27 AM on December 11, 2008

I think it's amazing that The Daily Show has a far better institutional memory than any news program.

Because remembering things means keeping track of the past, and the present is where it's at. That, and remembering things is boring, when compared to making up whatever you want and crediting an anonymous source.

When you run 24 hour news, there is a constant battle is eyeballs, which may or may not be attached to a functioning brain. Finding the next flashy thing means looking for new and exciting. The past is dead, unless it's really gross or outlandish. The Daily Show is more honest than many news shows, and spends more time researching (or their braintrust has a great long term memory ... or they actually keep a database of statements and affiliations).

And is it really news if it's not new?
posted by filthy light thief at 9:34 AM on December 11, 2008

The case for shitcanning Bill Kristol
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:14 AM on December 11

I know it's poor form to pro-click your own link but this is as pro-click as it gets and you should take a look at it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:45 AM on December 11, 2008

Is it too late to change my username to "Reverse Nostradamous"?
posted by vibrotronica at 9:52 AM on December 11, 2008

Republicans seem much more willing to call a spade a spade

Unless it's them trying to call a spade a WMD, a muslin etc.
posted by ersatz at 9:55 AM on December 11, 2008

I know it's poor form to pro-click your own link but this is as pro-click as it gets and you should take a look at it.

That list makes the same mistake as is made here.

"[McCain and Palin are] gonna win tuesday night. It's gonna be huge"
-William Kristol, October 30 2008

"Obama has many paths to victory, McCain only has probably one narrow path to victory. But you only need one narrow path. [...] It’s not very likely, but... it’s possible."
-William Kristol, November 2 2008

One of these things is not like the other...
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:58 AM on December 11, 2008

DU : Kristol... And on top of all that, he has a face you can't look at without wanting to punch him.

Yes. And Paulson is the same way, I have no idea why, but there is something about the way that they look that brings out the angry in me. They could be on TV talking about how the skies have opened and it's free puppies and ice-cream for everyone, for ever more, and I'd still be trying to figure out how to get close enough to take a swing at 'em.

I'm sure that in a perfect world, this would make me a bad person. But as it stands, with the shit that these guys spew, my reaction feels measured and appropriate.
posted by quin at 10:02 AM on December 11, 2008

MetaFilter: In a perfect world, we'd be bad people. But in reality, our actions are measured and appropriate. (Or simply "Measured and Appropriate")

I was hoping for some "What if" alternative present stories written as part of this post, especially with the tagline "the future that wasn't". Something like this:

On 10 September 2008, the proton beams were successfully circulated in the main ring of the LHC for the first and only time. The whole rickety machine, made impressive with shiny baubles and fancy scientific words like "Compact Muon Solenoid" and "Alice," succeeded in splitting the space-time continuum in twain. In one reality, the future remained a murky and terrible place, with world-wide economies spiraling ever downwards, and the nations in turmoil, contrary to the well-thought predictions of pundits. On the other side of the rainbow, predictions come true and all is well, as long as you were rooting for Hillary. Or Huckabee. If so, this is your world, where Hillary and Huckabee stand, hand in hand, greeting the United States and the world at large. Because of the LHC catastrophe, people realized that political parties really weren't worth it, and the best people should govern. With that, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee were voted as joint presidents, truly a first. With that, a potential recession was adverted, and things were good, especially in Kenya.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:36 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

“The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months.” —Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs oil analyst, in a May 5, 2008, report

We'll have to wait until May 5, 2010 before we can tell whether this prediction was true or false.
posted by sour cream at 10:43 AM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

We'll have to wait until May 5, 2010 before we can tell whether this prediction was true or false.

Not to mention that $147/barrel is morally, if not numerically, right. It's like the old question about the 20 ft tall person. You keep seeing people who are 6 ft tall and it seems like 20 ft is out of the question. Then you see an 18 ft tall person. You are still wrong, but now 20 ft doesn't look so dumb.
posted by DU at 10:54 AM on December 11, 2008

I miss the War Nerd.

Eh?
posted by Perplexity at 11:23 AM on December 11, 2008

The Daily Show is more honest than many news shows, and spends more time researching (or their braintrust has a great long term memory ... or they actually keep a database of statements and affiliations).

Behind the scenes at 'The Daily Show.'

Also, be sure to check out this comment made at Matt's PVRblog. [Previously].
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2008

Metafilter: OUTCOME: Pending.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2008

Bill Kristol's column in the NY Times pretty much sums up what's wrong with liberalism in America. It's not the notion that everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the weak-kneed equalizing notion that everyone's opinion is worth something, or ought to be respected. Republicans seem much more willing to call a spade a spade

Why yes, just look at the way mainstream Republicans have denounced the sheer inanity of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin. Those pundits are considered fringe and are never, ever given any airtime on conservative media outlets. I'd go on, but I seem to be running low on sarcasm.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:01 PM on December 11, 2008

When will online newspapers realize that there is no limit to a page's vertical size?
posted by odinsdream at 12:40 PM on December 11, 2008

When will online newspapers realize that there is no limit to a page's vertical size?

I suppose when ad-clicking ceases to generate revenue. Although I have no idea if there are any ads on that page.

ABP is now 1.0! Yeee~
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:46 PM on December 11, 2008

"How do I like the future? Well, the future's not here yet, man!"
"I think it has, uh, quite a great, uh, future in it."
"Here in the technical vastness of the future, we can guess that surely the past was very different."
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 1:19 PM on December 11, 2008

Why yes, just look at the way mainstream Republicans have denounced the sheer inanity of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin. Those pundits are considered fringe and are never, ever given any airtime on conservative media outlets.

Psh, they're the same breed of wingnut as Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore on the left. What I'm talking about is the fact that a liberal paper like the New York Times will bring on a columnist like Bill Kristol in a hand-wringing attempt to counterbalance Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich. It's not enough that they have columnists like David Brooks who are right-leaning, or Clark Hoyt publishing as the public Ombudsman.

On the flip side, you're not seeing the WSJ bringing in a Rachel Maddow or Maureen Dowd, and Fox News doesn't even bother having a token liberal. They give their wingnuts a soapbox, sure, but then liberal media goes and gives them a soapbox as well?
posted by explosion at 1:47 PM on December 11, 2008

explosion; I think the point was that the new york times is more of a centrist organization than a liberal one, as illustrated by the fact that they indeed invite him on their pages.
posted by odinsdream at 2:06 PM on December 11, 2008

Psh, they're the same breed of wingnut as Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore on the left.

Ah, I was just poking gentle fun at the claim that Republicans know how to "call a spade a spade". The same network that slammed Dan Rather will gleefully ask Ann Coulter what she thinks about any given topic. So let's not kid ourselves here.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:09 PM on December 11, 2008

What, no hate for Charles Krauthammer?

Can't.... type... seething....
posted by pompomtom at 2:37 PM on December 11, 2008

Bill Maher and Michael Moore - comedians - are not journalists and don't claim to be. They also aren't touted as experts in any capacity. And I'm pretty sure neither has started or worked in a policy advisory think tank.

Sorry comparing them to guys like Krauthammer, Kristol, or Brooks is weak.

The level of impact and actual destruction the "opinions" of guys like Kristol can leverage over policy should scare the shit our of you. Thousands of people died because of evil dip shits like Bill Kristol.

Let's do these comparisons when guys like Maher actually help plan for, promote, and start a war.
posted by tkchrist at 3:40 PM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

While we're on the topic of Bill "Reverse Nostradamus" Kristol and the Daily Show, one of the greatest Kristol moments I've seen was just before the election, when he was a guest on the show. I forget what Jon Stewart was saying, but to dismiss his point Kristol replied "You have to stop reading the New York Times." Stewart looked shocked for a second, then leaned towards Kristol, threw his hands forward and bellowed "YOU WORK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES!"

On the topic of the LHC, the doommongers are wrong not because it's so unlikely to destroy the world, but because it's a simple empirical fact that it wont. The LHC will only be able to produce proton collisions with a total energy of about 10¹³eV. Every second, proton collisions more powerful by between 4 and 6 orders of magnitude happen all over the Earth thanks to cosmic rays. The reason the LHC was built wasn't to create something new under the sun, but to put something that happens constantly in the upper atmosphere under the world's greatest microscope. If the LHC is going to end the world, the world must be in reruns, because the Earth must have ended quite some time ago.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:56 PM on December 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just like to point out that Rusty, and a week later I, predicted the end of the oil price bubble back in March, to the derision of many Metafites.
posted by eye of newt at 10:10 PM on December 11, 2008

Fixed link: Rusty
I hate it when I do that.
posted by eye of newt at 10:12 PM on December 11, 2008

Stewart looked shocked for a second, then leaned towards Kristol, threw his hands forward and bellowed "YOU WORK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES!"

Bill Kristol Knocks New York Times, Predicts McCain Win On “Daily Show”

“Bill Kristol knocked his own paper, the New York Times, on ‘The Daily Show’ last night, and repeated his prediction that John McCain will win the White House on Tuesday.

Jon Stewart joked with the error-prone Kristol, who he has mocked before (“Oh, Bill Kristol, Are You Ever Right?”), ‘You can't look at past performance as a predictor, otherwise you wouldn't be, obviously, still a pundit.’

‘You're reading The New York Times too much, Jon,’ Kristol told Stewart, only for Stewart to remind him that he works there. ‘Oh, it's a very fine newspaper — on one day of the week.’

Kristol also predicted that McCain would ‘win huge,’ but that even if Barack Obama does pull it off, he will be a ‘conventional’ president.’”

Watch it here.
posted by ericb at 10:46 PM on December 11, 2008

explosion: liberal media

Credibility shot. That's all.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 11:48 PM on December 11, 2008

explosion; I think the point was that the new york times is more of a centrist organization than a liberal one

No, I think the real point is that the left, though it gets branded as chaotic, is not afraid to talk about/think about/discuss differing viewpoints, where as the right has things like indellible platform planks and black-and-white fundamentals.

That is sort of the point of "left" and "right" is it not? Look no further than the names of their parties, the Republicans founded on a unified and indivisable Republic under God and the Democrats where the demos come together in their varying and individualistic ways. A liberal medium is not afraid to have Kristol in its pages, it doesn't go against it's purpose, in fact it supports it.

Incidentally, this is also how the left can at the same time appear to be ripping apart at the seams while continuing on down the road and the right cannot survive dissent within its ranks. It's as if the left were wet, unfired clay that can be molded into a shape for a time and hold it until pressed a different direction while the right is a rigid, fired pot. Press the right and they will not change shape. Strike them and they shatter.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:18 AM on December 12, 2008

If I had a hammer ...
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:16 AM on December 12, 2008

You'd hammer out justice, all over this land? Or you'd bash people who make outlandish predictions and aren't dressed in rags? Oh, you'd break the rigid pot that is the Republican Party.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:19 PM on December 12, 2008