Located near Geneva, Switzerland, it is a seventeen mile underground circle of continuous magnetic fields, intended to capture and smash protons together. The ambition is to create some of the same arcane particles that existed one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

It is opening for business this summer, and critics have been, well, busy.

They have pointed to the extreme conditions that gave birth to black holes in that trillionth of a second, and they astutely question whether these same conditions could now swallow the earth whole in the same instant.

They have also pointed out that some of those other arcane particles--called strangelets--could hypothetically transform the earth into a small, if quite dense, cosmic morsel in that same trillionth.

While the odds of this occurring are quite small--two different reports performed by different groups described the chances as "negligible"--one report defined negligible as being less than one in 50 million.

Now, this we can relate to. These are the common odds given against winning a lottery jackpot, and as we all know, in spite of these odds, lotteries are won all the time.

I can only imagine the fate of my unlucky Uncle Richie, who has never won more than four dollars in the lotteries he plays religiously. It is entirely possible, given these guesstimates, that he could finally win the big one, but do so exactly one-trillionth of a second before his winnings would be reduced, along with everything else, to a lump the size of a small wart.

Another report tried a different way of softening the news by resorting to actuarial techniques, the same techniques that insurance companies do to calculate risk. This group multiplied the probability of such a disaster times the total cost, that is, the entire population of the world. By stating this in an actuarial perspective, spreading this loss over time, the collider would only kill as many as 120 people every ten years or so.

Then again, that may be the price of pushing the frontiers of quantum physics.

There are other ways of calculating the chances and the extent of the disaster. The one in 50 million figure remains helpful, because this is also the figure that is used to estimate the chances of the earth being exploded by an asteroid. Pick a year, that's the chance of it happening. The fact that it has been well over 50 million years since this last happened does not seem to discourage the actronomers who make these calculations. But the truth is, we're clearly due.

Still, cool heads are prevailing. There have been no reports of property values plummeting in Geneva or anywhere else near the Large Hadron Collider. Presumably, this is because it is understood that whatever misfortune might occur would not be purely a local tragedy. So goes the Collider, so goes the world.

That is to say, should the unthinkable occur, property values in Greenwich, Connecticut would likely be affected every bit as much as those in Geneva, Switzerland.

Even Uncle Richie would understand those odds.

For those of you who haven't been following the news, the Democratic Party "elders" have been trying to force Hillary Clinton out of their Presidential Primary Race. They feel that Barack Obama must become the presumptive nominee of the party well in advance of the Democratic Convention in Denver this August.

The Math

The Democratic Party has 4,047 delegates attending the nominating convention. A candidate to the Democratic convention needs 2,024 delegates' votes to win the nomination. Thus far, Obama has 1,629, or 40%, of the total delgates needed to win the nomination. Clinton has 1,486, or 36%, of the total delgates needed to win the nomination. Based on this narrow spread, the powers that be in the Democratic Pary have decided, using some arcane math that escapes me, that Hillary Clinton must get out of the race. Supposedly, she has no chance of winning the nomination, despite the fact that 24% of the delegates have yet to be pledged. Their local primaries occur later in the year.

The Circuitious Logic

Now, let me make sure I've got this straight. The Democrats can't allow full, free and fair democratic elections, because that would do irreparable damage to the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama is the front-runner, and in fact he's so far out front that Hillary Clinton must withdraw from the race because the Democrats can't run the risk that she might win the nomination in Denver and embarrass the bejesus out of everyone. Never mind that Barack Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win on the first ballot in Denver. Barack Obama must receive the nomination, because Hillary Clinton doesn't have enough delegates to win on the first ballot in Denver. Huh!? Read it again. Sound like it doesn't make sense? It doesn't!

Hillary Clinton has to stop beating up on Barack Obama, so that he can so out-shine John McCain that even he ultimately will decide to vote for Barack Obama.

That about it, people?

History is Written by the Victors

Let's have a little lesson in history. The purpose of a political convention to to select a nominee, not stage-manage a coronation. In the 1860s, William Marcy Boss Tweed fixed the New York City Democratic Party elections in the smoke-filled rooms of Tammany Hall. Those days are over. In the 21st Century, the Democratic Party fixes its elections on the cable news channels, in plain sight of everyone.

Conventions have degenerated into pre-scripted infomercials, containing an election whose results are as phony as the enthusiasm of the delegates in the hall, designed solely to whoop up the audience at home. "Be among the 1st hundred callers, and you'll also get your own, personalized earmark! Hurry, they're going fast!"

In 1880 the Republicans nominated former speaker of the House of Representatives James A. Garfield on the thirty-sixth ballot. Garfield won the Presidency. In 1920, the Republicans selected Senator Warren G. Harding on the tenth ballot. He, too, won the Presidency. In 1932, during the depths of Great Depression, the Republicans renominated President Herbert C. Hoover. Two weeks later, Democrats selected Franklin D. Roosevelt over Al Smith on the fourth ballot. Roosevelt won the Presidency.

In 1972 the Democratic party nominated Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota on the first ballot. He lost.

In 1984, the Democrats nominated Walter F. Mondale, and, historically, Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President, on the first ballot. They lost.

In 1988 the Democrats nominated Gov. Michael S. Dukakis on the first ballot. He lost.

As history shows, there is no advantage to a candidate in getting the nomination on the first ballot, nor is there any disadvantage in not getting it on the first ballot.

Let me be clear: I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I also am not a practitioner or supporter of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. I'm a LOCist.

What's a LOCist? It's a Party of one, of which I am Party Chairman. It is based on the 1960s theory of television programming put forth by CBS "master scheduler" Mike Dann and Paul Klien of NBC, called the "LOP" or "Least Objectionable Program" theory. In those days, there were just the 3 major networks (or 2 plus ABC, if you're really honest) and programming was based on the concept of the Mass Audience. Nowadays, with network audiences down to about 50% from a high of 90%, the LOP theory no longer works.

HOWEVER, when it comes to Politics, there are only 2 "channels": Democratic and Republican; all the other parties are the equivalent of local stations, some with and some without network affiliations. Each major party needs MASS NUMBERS, so they try to nominate the Candidate that is Least Objectionable to their base. That's why, in primary season, Democrats run to the Left and Republicans to the Right, but in the General Elections, both move towards the perceived center. Party loyalists always vote for their party's candidate; the rest of us vote for the Least Objectionable Candidate (LOC). The candidate perceived by most voters to be Least Objectionable wins. Yay! Tapioca pudding for everyone!

So, as Chairman of the LOCist Party, I have nominated John McCain for the Presidency (on the 1st Ballot, no less) because, of the three major candidates now running, he is Least Objectionable. I'll go into the details of why in a subsequent editorial.

Given that I prefer McCain for the Presidency, why do I care about what the Democrats are doing? Simple: with all the negatives the Republicans have piled up against them this year, they stand a good chance of losing, despite the Democrats penchant for seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.

If McCain loses, who of the remaining two candidates is least objectionable? Despite the litany of negatives I could state about both Clintons, this race comes down to color. Not Black or White. GREEN. The last time we had a President as green as Barack Obama, it was a fellow named Jimmy Carter.

Carter was a good man; so is Obama. Carter had a good heart; so does Obama. Carter genuinely wanted to do what was best for the Country; so does Obama. But the nation and the world are still suffering, three decades later, from the mess that Jimmy Carter made of the Presidency, the Nation, and the World. The fact that Iran is our mortal enemy, the fact that our intelligence community is so hobbled that it got us into a war we never would have fought if we still had the kind of people in place that we had pre-Carter, the fact that we are have become a laughing stock around the world, and much, much more, are ALL traceable directly back to Jimmy Carter.

We can't risk another Jimmy Carter; I don't think we would survive as a nation. Yes, it's that serious. I'd prefer John McCain, but I may not get him. I'd rather have Hillary than Jimmy Redux.

Of course, even if the nomination goes all the way to Denver, Obama may still emerge the victor, and Hillary will be expected to endorse him in order to bring the party together. Your country is more important than your party. The safe and ongoing existence of your country makes the existence of your party possible. I can only hope against hope that Hillary will somehow find the courage to refuse to endorse Obama, and either suggest that her supporters vote for McCain or at least sit this one out.

The Sword of Damocles is hanging over our head, and it is named Obama.

Download a pdf file of the Editorial.

Related Stories: