Skeptics & Politics

Norman Borlaug 1914-2009

2009-09-13T11:02:00.003-04:00

Whenever I give a lecture on great individuals, or people who my students think of as a hero, the usual response is family members or sports personalities. Then I give mine.

I ask the class, "If someone saved the life of one person, that's a good thing right? That person would be a hero, yes?" Nods of agreement.

"And if you managed to save, say three or four that would be better, yes? Not to diminish saving only one, but more is better, right?" Nods of agreement.

"My hero, Norman Borlaug, is not credited with saving one or two, or even a thousand. He is credited with saving over 200 million lives."

"Who's your hero now?"

At 95 he was still in the fields of war torn and impoverished countries trying to get the people reliable and high yield crops to feed them.

The Rational Moderate.

Birthers and Health Care

2009-08-14T12:11:00.002-04:00

There seems to be a connection between the Birther movement and the anti-health care reform town hall crazy movement. For those who don't know, the birther movement is for those who do not believe that Barack Obama is president of the US because either a) he was not born in the US but some other country possibly Kenya or b) he was born in Hawaii but is not actually a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires. Those in camp b) have a somewhat firmer grasp on reality than those in a) who would need to insist that the certificate of live birth, the birth certificate, the announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers at that time, and the current Hawaiian health officials who keep saying over and over again that yes we are staring right at his birth certificate could you please stop bothering us we have real work to do are lying. Those in camp b) are simply trying to make the case that the constitution has some explicit definition of natural born citizen beyond simply being born in the US and thus having citizenship that must be written with some sort of lemon juice and can only be seen if held up to flickering flame.

On either side of this movement are those who think themselves moderate who proclaim, "If only he would produce his birth certificate all of this would go away," while closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears whenever someone does just that (Lou Dobbs and Chuck Norris I'm looking at you).

It takes a real knack for not caring what facts are to be able to hold this viewpoint. And that leads us to the connection with the health care reform town hall crazies. One of the biggest claims to take hold for those who are against any health care reform or public option is that you will have to stand, especially the elderly, and defend your worth to a death panel so that you can continue to live. That this reform is really a smokescreen to kill off the elderly. Sarah Palin said, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Of course there is no such thing as a 'death panel' being proposed or even considered because Palin is right, it would be evil. Nothing like this is being offered and the closest thing to it is a provision that would encourage people to make living wills by offering to compensate doctors for having that discussion with you. But, since we are dealing with the same people that think Obama is not a citizen and therefore not president it is easy to see why such a fact free position can take hold. It is almost as if (and I don't believe this to actually be true) the anti-health care folks were testing the water with the Birther movement to see what they could actually get away with that people would start to believe and repeat. "If they were gullible enough to buy the Obama was born in Kenya, then they will certainly believe that Obama is going to set up death panel's where you have to defend your right to live, hehehe."

Yet, even if there is no such conspiracy (and again I don't believe there is one or anything more than throwing everything at the wall and seeing what will stick) there still is a connection in the utter disregard for facts in both cases and that is unacceptable.

On a side note, I think "death panel" would make an awesome name for a band.

The Rational Moderate

Ubiquitous photography and the police

2009-03-29T09:29:00.002-04:00

There is an interesting list of cops who were caught behaving illegally in NYC by the prevalence of cameras on Carlos Miller's very well named blog Photography is Not A Crime It is a First Amendment Right. What is interesting is the list is that all of the acts involve cops setting up citizens to take some sort of legal fall rather than just the cops doing something illegal off duty.

At the same time, there is a large fight in Britain to get rid of the surveillance state that has appeared with a CCTV camera on every corner of London ( I exaggerate by only smidge). Those who are against the ubiquitousness of the camera surveillance also seem to be the ones who are all for the ubiquitousness of cameras busting cops who go bad. Is there a contradiction here?

It may be that as long as the surveillance is in the hands of the people, it cannot be abused in the same way it would be by those in power. But, I'm not sure that is the case, especially given the move of technology. Would you trust a photograph as evidence the same way you would have 30 years ago? How long before that same level of skepticism is brought to video, as it likely should?

The Rational Moderate

Chase Frantzen

2009-03-06T10:09:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the (sometimes and mostly) wonderful world Chase. I can't wait to read your first comment (I'm betting on woot!) and your first online flame war.

Congratulations to The Frantzens and here's hoping you keep posting up to and beyond the point that it completely embarrasses him in front of his friends.

The Rational Moderate

Just Brilliant

2009-02-09T12:04:00.002-05:00

Not Skeptical. Not Politics. Just Brilliant.

Oren Lavie - Her Morning Elegance
by IgnitionVM

The Rational Moderate

The War on Drugs is Stupid Reason number #368

2009-02-01T10:44:00.002-05:00

Let me get this straight, Michael Phelps won the most olympic gold medals of anyone ever, and he did so while being a pot head. He does a drug that makes you lazy, slow, and want to eat every unhealthy thing you can get your grubby little hands on, and he STILL WON MORE GOLD MEDALS THAN ANYONE. ELSE. EVER.

This little bit of news does give us an opportunity to examine a logical fallacy: The Slippery Slope.

Ever heard arguments like these? If you do drugs like pot, then your life will be ruined because you will only care about getting high and nothing else.

If you smoke pot, then when that kick wears off you will go out and try worse drugs that will eventually ruin your life.

If we legalize pot, then everyone will be smoking it and we could end up being operated on by a doctor who is high.

If we legalize gay marriage, then that will open the doors for incest and pedophilia and before you know it someone will be marrying a goat.

The slippery slope is basically where one step leads directly to worse and worse outcomes, ad so the conclusion is you should never take the first step. Some actually try to use slippery slope as a valid logical argument by stating that you shouldn't take the first step because it is a slippery slope. It's not. It is a logical fallacy.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that the next steps never necessarily follow from the first. Either the person making the argument has missed some crucial difference between the situations to make it unlikely (for example, with gay marriage the difference is in consent - adults can, children and animals cannot) or that the first step isn't really what will lead to the others happening (for example, with pot being illegal a) it doesn't mean I will - never have, never will - and b) this hasn't stopped people from smoking it and so it is already likely that a doctor has performed an operation while high.)

So we need to avoid slippery slope arguments or we will end up believing all kinds of fallacious arguments and before you know it civilization will collapse as a whole.

The Rational Moderate

Reason Why Alternative Medicine is Bad #2753

2009-01-27T11:00:00.004-05:00

I'm not a fan of alternative medicine in the sense that I don't think there is any such thing. If it works, it's medicine. If it doesn't work, it's nonsense. But you sometimes get this argument from proponents: "If it seems like it is helping the person taking it, and it isn't harming them, why not let them take it?" Well, one of the main reasons stems from their taking some type of alternative medicine to begin with. The average partaker of alternative medicine never looks at a plant and says to themselves, I should ingest this to help with my shin splints. No, they get testimonials from others- word of mouth leads them to believe that x will help with y. But once you start believing in testimonials as a good reason for trying a certain *cough* treatment *cough* then you are more likely to rely on this in other cases than your shin splints.

This leads to problems such as believing that the bones, skin, hair... of albinos will help cure what ails you because others claim it does. Yes, in Tanzania, witch-doctors are kidnapping and killing and/or mutilating albino people to use their body parts for medicine. The government of Tanzania has banned the practice, but when your dealing with people who (not completely at their own fault) believe this alternative medicine works you should not be surprised when the witch-doctors ignore the ban. If you have the testimonial of your neighbors and from those who are supposed to be an authority on the matter (witch-doctors) and you are in the habit of not critically thinking about the problems of blindingly believing such things, or of the errors of reasoning that people are prone to about their own experiences, then you shouldn't be suprised when you end up with this kind of horror show.

The Rational Moderate

Solutions: Your Shrinking Investments

2009-01-07T13:05:00.004-05:00

Howdy, howdy, howdy. S&P is back after the end of year holidays and a nice bout of sickness. To kick of the year I'm starting a new column entitled Solutions, where instead of my normal complaining about ridiculous garbage spewed by politicians and other public figures I'll attempt to offer what I think are some genuine fixes to what ails us. Today, I'm going to offer a quick tip for all of you wanna be investors who are scared out of your minds about the markets right now.

When we go through economic downturns, be it recessions or what not, people tend to spend less money on frivolous things which means going out to dinner less and maybe skipping that new movie and perhaps just spending more time at home... bored...

*wink wink nudge nudge*

I coined the term "Bailout Baby" as soon as I heard that the government was considering stepping in to prop up the failing banking institutes during the presidential election and stuck with that term as "TARP Baby" lacks the alliteration and sounds like some sort of sticky disease. Come June we are going to start to see the outcome of this recession in maternity wards across the nation. So my solution for those who are looking at the rock bottom stock prices and are thinking that there must be something worth while investing in and holding on to for a rainy day: any large company that specializes in baby necessities such as food and diapers (ala Procter and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson...)

Keep in mind the necessities bit and avoid such nonsense as Baby Mozart or Einstein or DeSade or whatever nonsense they are trying to sell as that leg up your kid needs to get into Harvard. If people are trying to tighten their wallets they become a little bit better informed about products and will recognize snake oil for its slither.

The Rational Moderate

(Oh, the picture of that beautiful baby is of my Best Man Pat's new little girl Katherine Anne. Congratulations Pat!!!)

Two Great Things Even Better Together

2008-12-17T12:58:00.002-05:00

I have long held that Outkast's "Hey Ya" is the best written song in the past 15 years (I might even go to 20 if you push me on it). Combine that with Peanuts - Gold, I tell you Gold!

Don't worry we'll get back to writing about bleepin Bagojevich and throwin bleepin shoes soon.

The Rational Moderate

K&B Toys is Closing

2008-12-12T14:07:00.007-05:00

There is so much to write about right now that it is getting hard to whittle it down to one topic per post. But between the failure of the auto bailout, Bush's gutting of the endangered species act, Scientists being able to take an image from someone's mind and display it on a monitor, and the MPAA asking Obama to filter the internet and adopt a three strikes and your out policy to those caught (or just accused, or just winked at by the MPAA) of downloading or sharing illegal copyrighted material and force other foreign governments to do the same. But instead, Let's chat about K&B Toys closing their doors for good. I'm not really surprised by this, as the economy is terrible and K&B have always been overpriced by the very nature of having to pay mall rent for most of their locations. But still, K&B was my reason for going to the mall with my Mom when I was a kid. In fact the one I went to had two of them at either end with slightly different merchandise. I would travel from one to the other to see what was the best deal I could get for my 4 dollar a week allowance. And I got some cool deals, not the least of which is an original Scott Bernard and his cyclone from when Robotech was a staple of afternoon cartoon blocs. But today, the trend in toys is towards video games and K&B has never been able to compete in that area despite most video game and console prices being set by the industry so you don't ever really get new games cheeper at Walmart, Target or Gamestop, but it always seemed that K&B marked their prices up from that and were always slow to reduce when the item didn't sell. And so, rather than embracing a model of aggressively going after video game market, just like Chrysler and possibly GM not really going after modern car markets, K&B is done.

So long K&B, the 12 year-old me will miss you.

The Rational Moderate

Supreme Court Accepts "Enemy Combatant" Case

2008-12-09T12:25:00.003-05:00

There is a lot of interesting things happening right now, which I suppose is to be expected given the abuse of powers that has infected the country for the past eight years will soon be if not cured than at least we've made it to the waiting room.

The Supreme Court, despite Bush and Co.'s objections, will hear the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who was designated an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and held in a military brig for the past five years. He was originally arrested for credit card fraud, but some where along the lines this was changed by executive order essentially ejecting him from the American legal system.

The question the Supreme Court will examine is whether the President has the authority to arrest and imprison a person/civilian indefinitely without and part of the judicial branch of the government getting involved. In other words, no trial, no reading of charges, no defense, no appeal... All of this because Bush labeled him an "enemy combatant."

It's surprising that the Supreme Court will hear this for a couple of reasons. First, there is a new administration coming in which will, it seems likely, change this stance. If it seems like the issue will go away, the SC is likely to let it happen. They could have postponed ruling on viewing the case until the new administration. Second, I expected Bush to change the status of this person so he would be tried in a criminal court to avoid having this case come before the SC and therefore establishing some amount of precedent for it. Since the SC would have then had no reason to review this case, they would have chosen to not and the US Court of Appeals in Virginia's ruling in favor of Bush would have stood.

However, it is really good news that they will hear this case since it seems really, really unlikely that the SC will rule in favor of Bush and this needs to be nipped in the bud. Since the case won't be herd until March it will fall under Obama's presidency. Here is what he should do: keep al-Marri labeled as an enemy combatant and get this thing to a ruling. The only way to squash this as a precedent is not through executive order but through the courts. If Obama changes this notion, it will only apply for his administration and if another lunatic with no regards for the constitution comes into power, the precedent will be there for the President to make this decision. If Obama is against this, he needs to fight to keep that power in the courts. Some of you might be thinking, "But what if he wins and this becomes a recognized legal practice?" The problem is, if it doesn't go to court now, this will be a recognized legal practice. The only way to tank it is to take it all the way.

The Rational Moderate

An Octopus and CNN

2008-12-05T11:29:00.003-05:00

Here are two seemingly unrelated stories, but in fact have a lot to do with each other. The first story is of a little mischievous octopus named Otto. It seems that in the winter months, when the aquarium in Germany is closed to the public, little Otto gets bored and takes it upon himself to fix that problem. One of he things he discovered he could do was stand on the rim of his tank and shoot a stream of water to short out a spotlight. He's also been known to juggle hermit crabs, throw rocks against the tank's glass, and rearrange the decor of the tank to suit his own tastes nevermind the other creatures living there (see dizzy hermit crabs.)

What isn't stated in this article is that Octopuses are very, very intelligent creatures who will get into all sorts of trouble unless given enough stimulation such as toys to play with. There is no background on our scientific understanding of the behavior of these creatures nor any indication that this is anything other than an anomaly in the undersea world.

The Second story is the aftermath of a dumbing down of the science reporting that has been going on for years. CNN is cutting its entire science, technology, and environment news staff. Now, they're reply to what seems like an outrageously stupid idea is that they want to integrate these areas into the general news structure rather than have a standalone unit. Sounds reasonable? It's not. Mainly because they are letting all of their science writers go, so instead of getting people who actually understand science and tech and can also actually write so that others can understand it correctly (something most scientists are themselves terrible at) are going to have the stories they should be writing written up by people who are more interested in covering Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

If the other networks like MSNBC and FOX were smart, they would grab these folks and make a damn big deal out of having the premier science and technology news team.

The Rational Moderate

Kind of Big News That's Not Getting Around

2008-12-03T11:04:00.004-05:00

The Supreme Court has decided not to review a case where the California courts ruled that the state laws on medical marijuana could not be ignored by local law enforcement in favor of the federal laws. In other words - state law trumps federal law for local cops.

This is pretty big news. This sets as a precedent the notion that state law has a higher authority than federal law in certain circumstances. This is the closest we've ever come to taking a step back towards the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Typically, federal law always trumps local and state law, and practically that hasn't really changed here. What has changed is that local and state law enforcement agents (in California- though the precedent could be used in other states) are not allowed to spend there time pursuing, arresting, and prosecuting cases where the state law has the act as legal and federal law has it as illegal. This still would allow federal law enforcement (CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, ABC, EFG, HIJ...) the ability to go after these individuals under federal law, but draws a line in the sand for the local cops.

This, despite of what I'm sure is a resounding protest from social conservatives, is what you get with a fairly Republican Supreme Court from the Reganish years. State's rights matter and should be encouraged while trying to shrink the federal government. The problem for them is that a lot of states are then going to do things that they don't like. Hence the current Republican federal government's confused position of not liking the federal government and yet expanding it uncontrollably because the state's didn't line up the way they thought they would.

I think this stems from a current talking point that has been percolating since the Gringrich Republican revolution in 1996: the country is center right. And to listen to any news or any pundit on either side of the aisle you'll hear this phrase pop up. When you hear a phrase uttered enough you start to believe it, especially if you already want to believe that to be true as many Republicans do. (See my post on Confirmation Bias) And you may even be able to take polls that ask the American publics where they see themselves and since they have also heard this trumpeted around they will check off the box "center right." Do you see the problem yet?

Just because you might call yourself "center right" or check off that box in a poll, does not mean you actually are center right when you look at the specific issues. As an example, several years ago I helped run an experiment of which one part was to ask students where they felt they fell on a political spectrum and then asked them to fill out a questionnaire on specific issues that would the give a placement of their political views along the same axis they labeled themselves on. I'm sure you can see where this is going. Sure enough the majority of students rated themselves as slightly conservative, or center right, but as soon as where they actually stood on the issues was scored, the majority was center left.

If anything even close to this holds true throughout the nation, and it probably does though a better chosen population for such a study would make for a better study, then we can see the Republican's dilemma. They think the country is at least leaning towards their side, and yet when specific issues arise, such as the legalization of wacky tobaccy, they are confused by where the public opinion, and so certain laws, goes. The results are that the very things they supposedly want to accomplish, such as a smaller federal government and more state's rights, end up thwarting the realization of many of their key social conservative issues.

The Rational Moderate

Confirmation Bias

2008-12-02T10:36:00.002-05:00

There is a nice Op-Ed piece by Michael Shermer in the Los Angeles Times on the connection between confirmation bias and cult like behavior. Last month was the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown massacre which gave us our only Congressperson killed in the line of duty as well as the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid."

For those who don't know or remember, the Jonestown massacre was the mass suicide of 918 cult members in the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project led by Jim Jones in Guyana, though the group were mostly Americans who moved the organization there from California. After Congressman Leo Ryan visited the compound to investigate its activities, he along with several aids and journalists were shot at a while on the airstrip to leave. Ryan and four others were killed. After that incident, Jones urged his followers to take cyanide and end their lives rather than have their way of life taken from them. Most complied, though some were shot and others forced to drink. Why do we know this? Because the event was recorded on audio tape. The irony of it all is that apparently Ryan's report was going to be a favorable one.

But what has this to do with confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is one of the biggest psychological impediments we have to understanding what is really the case compared to what we think is the case. For example, on days it might rain I may say to myself, "If I take an umbrella, I'll be prepared and therefore it won't rain." Sure enough, I take my umbrella and it doesn't rain. From this I think about all of the times this has happened and I confirm my original belief: that if I take an umbrella it won't rain, or even that the universe has a mean sense of humor. Of course this is nonsense, but this is how confirmation bias works. We are psychological prone to seek out examples, data, and facts that support our beliefs and ignore, forget, or discount and examples, data, or facts that disprove our beliefs.

The connection between cults such as Jonestown or Heaven's Gate and confirmation bias is illustrated in the Congressman Ryan's visit and the cult members reaction to it. Jim Jones has been preaching for awhile that the government would try to stop them. This was probably not as hard to do as in other cults since Jonestown was based on communist ideals and so could use much of the anti-communist propaganda to promote the idea that the american government was against them. So despite Ryan's visit seeming to be favorable, the cult members (along with Jones) took the visit alone as evidence to back up their belief that the government was plotting against them. Any evidence to the contrary didn't match their beliefs and so was ignored or dismissed.

With Heaven's Gate, the biggest piece of evidence that confirmed their belief that there was an alien space ship on it's way to take their spirits to paradise was the appearance of the Hale-Bopp comet.

Now granted these groups go out of their way to limit the contact and information with the outside to stop the picking up of facts, thoughts, or opinions that may counter the cult's core beliefs, yet the same principles apply (though likely to varying degrees) to every person. Some think that the remedy for this is to make sure you get your information from various sources. If you listen to Fox News for all of your news, then you should likely tune into MSNBC to counter Fox's conservative bias. I disagree. I think the best remedy is to be aware of confirmation bias and that we are all susceptible to it, and then use logic and reason to work our way through it. Listening to both sides will most likely leave one in the middle or cynical of any perspective, but as I've said before, "Truth is Biased."

Hey, think I'll make that my new slogan!

The Rational Moderate

American Auto Bailout

2008-12-01T13:01:00.002-05:00

The question of the day: Should we bailout the American Auto industry, or let it go?

Against:

1) Sends American tax payers into more debt. Sure, the big three say that this is a loan that they will pay back when they start making money again - but will they start making money again?

2) Free Markets. If a business isn't doing well or is getting trounced by the competition it should change or go away. If it does try to change it needs to do so in a way that doesn't make things worse in the long run even if it looks like it could make a short term increase. The American Auto industry is getting trounced and has shown little change, and what they have shown in the last few years, more SUVs and lower mpgs, has stunk.

3) Their products stink. The reliability and quality of American autos has been terrible for most of my life. Given the economic recession we are in now and will probably be in for many years to come, which car would you buy to last - Honda/Toyota or Ford/GM?

4) There is an American auto industry for workers building foreign cars. If the big three go away, many, though certainly not all, of their workers and factories will likely be picked up by foreign automakers wanting to cut down on shipping costs by building the cars in the US rather than ship them in from overseas.

For the bailout:

1) The price of the bailout will be far less than the loss of the jobs to our economy. Less jobs = less money in the economy + more unemployment = taxpayer still getting screwed.

2) Auto manufacturers actually make something. Unlike all of the banks that are getting bailed out right now, the car industry has an end product that actually has some value. Rachel Maddow (an unabashed lefty) made an interesting observation that there seems to be a class warfare happening where white collar jobs are deemed to big to fail, while blue collar jobs are not important. The problem with this view is that it flies in the face of the above against positions where the blue collar jobs may be important, but their products are not selling. Still, the auto industry accounts for something like 4% of our GPD, and so it would be a pretty big thing to fail.

3) This one has a caveat - the bailout must have a caveat or two or three. I would have thought that this was a no brainer, but then I heard Maddow's interview on 11/24 (you can get it on itunes) with the head of the United Auto Workers Union who claimed that the American auto industry was innovative and green and forward thinking and I thought to myself, "If we rely on these bozos to decided what constitutes all of the necessary provisions such as alternative fuel, better mpg, and greener tech, we are going to get the same crap that put them in this hole and they're going to think they are wonderful and that it is the customers who are off their rocker." So what we need is a set standard that individuals who are not in that industry but are knowledgeable about the technology to set the provisions and not the industry itself.

In the end, I think it should happen, and I'm someone who has never owned an American made car. The #1 reason on the pro side weighs heavier than the rest. But if someone doesn't get in there and kick those morons in the head until they start to get it, I'm going to stick with my Yaris.

The Rational Moderate

Down with DST!!!

2008-11-24T11:22:00.002-05:00

via Boing Boing

If I'd have known that Obama was against Daylight Savings Time, I might have been persuaded to donate to his campaign when he was running. I've always hated DST as the reasons for it - save energy and makes it safer for kids at school, just didn't seem right when looking at waking up in the dark and getting home from work in the dark.

Now thanks to Indiana only recently (2006) joining the bandwagon and instituting DST we can test the energy saving aspect. Turns out it costs more.

Now it's unclear from various blogs reporting this if Obama is actually considering this, or if he should be considering it, but if the former is true his approval rating in this household would go way up.

The Rational Moderate

Good Thing/Bad Thing...Obama's Transition and Appointment Rumors

2008-11-18T11:30:00.003-05:00

1. Let's start with the big one. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Good Thing: During her time in the white house she met with many foreign leaders in a diplomatic setting.

Bad Thing: She pretty thoroughly bashed Obama's ideas on foreign relations during the primaries. Is he to trust that she'll follow his lead now?

Good Thing: Team of Rivals. It's probably a good thing to have people who disagree with you in your cabinet.

Bad Thing: Obama is making the same mistake that cost McCain the election. We don't want a return to the Bush/Clinton years. Bringing a CLinton in really undermines that notion.

Verdict: Bad Thing. There are better people out there than Clinton who can keep doing the things she likes as Senator in New York. I would think a better choice would be Bill Richardson who was our UN ambassador for a time as well as Secretary of Energy.

2. Jim Ramstad as head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Good Thing: Ramstad is a Republican. See Team of Rivals.

Bad Thing: Opposes medical marijuana.

Good Thing: Recovering addict, so is not completely unaware when making claims about drug addicts.

Bad Thing: Worked for 27 years on anti-drug efforts by the government. You know, that "War" on drugs that has helped to put 1% of our population in jail.

Verdict: Bad, but could be worse. Look, we already have drug czar creator Biden, so I don't think we need another person in this administration who is coo-coo for locking up hippies. This also is a point against Obama's campaign talk when he discussed decriminalizing marijuana.

Disclosure: For those who read this and don't really know me, I have a similar view to Penn Jillette in that I have never taken any illegal drug including marijuana and have never had any desire to, but still find the war on drugs to be a ridiculous waste of time, money, and law enforcement resources to the detriment of our individual freedom.

3. Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach for the FCC transition team.

Good Thing: Big proponents of net-neutrality. For those who don't know, net-neutrality is the notion that the internet should remain a level playing field for anyone who wold enter it. Without it in place, certain companies, such as your internet provider, could charge websites a fee to direct traffic to their site faster and easier than other sites among other internet roadblocks. Nothing would hamper the innovation of the web more than such a policy, which is why net-neutrality is so important.

Bad Thing: FCC is still a nightmare so it's not clear to me how much they can really accomplish.

Verdict: Looks good to me.

The Rational Moderate

Sigh of Relief

2008-11-13T11:50:00.004-05:00

I have been really, really worried about Bush lately. Since the election took up so much of everyone's attention, Bush has been squirreled away making all kinds of ridiculous executive orders along the lines of deregulating power plant pollution and loosening restrictions on the safety of drinking water. The timing and reason behind these is because of the Clinton administration. When Billy-boy was getting ready to leave office he spent some time issuing executive orders that the Republicans found offensive, but since he waited until the last month to issue them and there is a 60 day waiting period before they go into effect (because they are so very, very much like guns - it's not the executive orders that hurt people, it's the president behind the executive orders that hurt people) as soon as Bush took office he simply canceled them all.

Bush and his team of course remembered all this and so started all of their executive orders earlier than the 60 day waiting period ensuring that it would be difficult for Obama to come in and cancel them. This had me very, very concerned.

Thankfully there is a law I was unaware of - and I realize that may be the first time in my life I have made that claim. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 contains a clause that any changes made within 60 days of the end of that years Congress will be known to be legally finalized on the 15th day of the new Congress. That would make these orders take effect probably sometime in February. Plenty of time for them to be examined and abolished. This is probably my favorite law ever.

However, the idea that there even is such a thing as executive orders which essentially means that the executive branch is legislating!!! makes me sick to my stomach.

The Rational Moderate

Why The Rational Moderate?

2008-11-10T11:54:00.003-05:00

Part two of the origins of this blog continues with where the Rational Moderate moniker comes from.

I've been an independent since first grade. We had one of those elementary school fake election deals where you would register and then vote for a certain candidate who was running in the real election. I saw my choices and went with independent. When I was finally able to register for real, sure enough, independent. It was a real thrill when I moved to New York and instead of independent I joined what I called "The Decline Party" as in I decline to join a party. I've never been a fan of party politics because it ends up being a pennant waving sort of mess where you end up supporting people you don't like and don't agree with simply because they are in your party.

Take Joe Lieberman for example. There are a lot of calls by Democrats for his being punished for supporting McCain, knocking Obama, and supporting down ticket Republicans. I find this off putting. Why can't an individual politician, especially one who is in the Senate as an Independent, go with what he thinks is right? Now I can't stand Lieberman, but I find this kind of talk disturbing.

The moderate comes in because of an attempt to show that I won't be adopting the ideals of any particular party, but rather examine the issues and positions and the solutions offered by both parties and see if there isn't something that captures what is right from both. However, I do not necessarily think that compromise or meeting in the middle is correct. This is the fallacy of the mean. Just because something is a middle position between two extremes does not make that middle position correct, or even more likely to be correct. A moderate position may be a good starting point, but it is not necessarily the end point. If the two extremes are a monarchy or a democracy, I will not be swayed into a middle position where we all vote for our monarch who can then do whatever they want. Truth, unlike what Fox News"fair and balanced" believes, is biased. It leans one way or another and rarely does it rest like a pendulum in the middle. The trick is to recognize that simply because one side of a divide is correct on one issue does not make them correct on every other issue. Or worse, if they are correct on 99% of the issues this still does not make them right for the last 1%.

And this is where the Rational moniker comes in. It is the reminder against the sway of the fallacy of the mean. Google reactions to Paris Hilton's hilarious video of her running for President. Her final solution to the energy crisis to drill in the US now as a stop gap while investing in alternative fuels was seen by many as the best solution and a compromise/middle ground between Obama and McCain. But it would be wrong. Expanding our drilling would have zero effect on our current situation as we don't pull up our cars to the drill and fill it up. It takes years to refine this stuff, and even then it won't be a drop in the bucket compared to what we use. So we need to be clear headed and rational enough to recognize when one side is wrong enough that even a middle position is still a faulty one.

This may lead some to label you as "in the tank" for one side or another. How can you be sure your doing it right? I have a simple test: People I know who are far-right pennant waving Republicans call me a lefty-hippy-marxist and those on the far-left pennant waving Democrats call me a fascist-capitalist-pig. Usually this occurs when I am questioning their position which they automatically take to be my agreeing with the opposing view as opposed to critiquing their position before I adopt or reject it.

Hence,

The Rational Moderate

Skeptics and Politics

2008-11-07T11:09:00.003-05:00

I'm not going to spend this post writing on where McCain went wrong and Obama got it right. There will be plenty of time for that later. But since so much of this blog has been dedicated to the 2008 presidential election, now that it is over I thought I'd spend a couple of posts describing what I envision this blog to be about and why it's called Skeptics and Politics as well as why I sign off as the Rational Moderate. Today is on the Skeptics and Politics portion.

Skeptics

Skepticism comes in a few different categories. There is the simple doubt that we experience when we hear a tale of something extraordinary such as a coin landing on it's side. It's not impossible, but we are likely to wonder if the person telling the tale isn't making it up. This type of skepticism doesn't actually happen that often as we are prone to believe what others say because we generally are truthful. If someone tells us it's raining we usually just grab our umbrellas and don't bother looking out the window. But as the claims ratchet up to being more uncommon we start to doubt the believability of the claims.

But Skepticism as a movement, rather than just a particular state of mind, comes in two forms which I'll call Ontological Skepticism and Scientific Skepticism.

1) Ontological Skepticism is where one doubts, well, everything. Ontology is the study of reality or being, and so a skeptic of this sort doubts any and all propositions that she might hear. This is an extremely hard position to take as you would have to doubt your ability to do it as well as doubt its correctness and so usually this is found in some esoteric religion.

2) Scientific Skepticism is more about epistemology (the study of knowledge) than ontology in that it questions claims about reality along the lines of "how can we know?" It can give negative claims about questions of ontology, but it cannot truly make any positive ones, but only probabilistic ones. The skeptics in this camp answer that the best method we have for knowledge is the scientific method which works in such a way as to remove many of the biases we might have. For example, many people believe in a phenomenon call "hot hands" were a particular athlete goes on a streak of making incredible shots in row that wouldn't ordinarily happen. Sadly for those sports fans, there actually is no such thing. What constitutes "hot hands" falls within the statistical probability for that particular athlete. For example, when flipping a coin there is a 50/50 chance of it landing heads or tails, but given enough flips it is extremely probable that you will hit a streak of many heads or tails in a row. Does the coin have "hot hands?"

This is also the area where logical fallacies come into play. These are mistakes in reasoning. I've talked about a couple in the past, such as the Hypocrite Fallacy and the Argument from Authority Fallacy, but there are plenty of others.

Skeptics and Politics

The Skeptics part of this blog is in the latter camp. What I hope I have done and will continue to do is point out the errors in reasoning that occur in politics as well as in other areas of our lives. It seems to me that many of the arguments that happen around politics are founded on either faulty premises or mistakes of reasoning from sound premises. I've heard skeptics argue that they try to stay out of political arguments because they are ultimately value based and so cannot be looked at using the same methods that one uses to evaluate fact based claims. I disagree. This assumes several things 1) that the values are equal in that they have the same objective amount or are purely subjective and so have an objective value of zero, and 2) that values are evaluated in a completely different way than facts. The first is, I think, an open question. It's not enough to just claim that values are subjective rather than objective because they feel that way, one must argue for that position and it could be the case that there really is an objectively right and wrong thing to do. The second is wrong because we can and should evaluate values in a similar way to how we evaluate facts, namely negatively. Just as a skeptic takes a claim such as the existence of Leprechauns and asks questions about what would it take for this creature to exists, we can evaluate value claims based on what it would take to make them exist.

David Hume wrote about the gap that exists between factual claims and normative claims ("is" claims and "ought"claims) and that just because something is a certain way does not mean that it should be that way. This is what leads many skeptics to abandon discussing politics under the same scrutiny as the Loch Ness Monster. But the flip side of the coin is that "ought implies can." To make the claim that someone should perform some action or value some outcome requires the possibility that they factually can. If I say to you, "You should fly out the window and rescue that cat from the tree," my statement holds no weight because you cannot fly out the window. So, if certain values or ends are raised in politics there is a way we can skeptically analyze them and hopefully come up with a better way.

The Rational Moderate

Welcome to the Future

2008-11-04T23:04:00.003-05:00

Obama wins.

My problems with him and Biden aside, how great is it that given that my parents were alive during segregation and civil rights eras that they and their children could see this day.

Fantastic.

The Rational Moderate

Obama's Ad

2008-11-03T12:46:00.004-05:00

So while I said I was going to watch Obama's ad on the night it ran, I instead tuned into Pushing Daisies instead as it is on the chopping block and is one of my wife's (and mine) favorite show. So I watched the informercial a few days later on the internet.

1. I think Pete was right, it was pretty cheesy. But, I learned long ago that most Americans like cheese- thick, gooey, cheese. The music in the background had me checking to make sure I was watching Obama and not Home Makeover.

2. I think mike to the D is also somewhat right, I think, in that some of Obama's economic plans are misleading or make no sense given the current market crisis and national debt.

3. I wasn't persuaded on the basis of the ad to vote for Obama. I don't think it really conveyed what I think he actually is trying to do economically in response to the concerns mike to the D raised.

4. Having said all that, I am actually more impressed with Obama economically now, then I was a few days ago. Here's why:

I live in Bethlehem PA which is literally connected to Allentown PA. When the steel plants shut down a few years back and many of the jobs left the area, the cities experienced an economic crisis that put both into heavy financial losses. The two separate mayors of the two cities had different approaches to solving the problem. The mayor of Allentown froze spending and tightened the purse strings hoping to ride out the problem. The mayor of Bethlehem opted instead to invest, despite being in a deficit, in the town's infrastructure in the hopes of keeping the jobs and the people in place. The consequences of these two approaches are apparent to anyone who spends time in both cities. Bethlehem was able to pull itself out of the hole and become a great place to work and live while Allentown still struggles to this day. In a nut shell, Obama is the mayor of Bethlehem and McCain is the mayor of Allentown - assuming what they say they are planning on doing actually happens.

The Republicans for years have been arguing for an Adam Smith/invisible hand approach to this countries economy. Hence the tax break for the wealthiest that would inevitably trickle down into the pockets of those in the middle which would in turn trickle down to the poorest. Deregulation was supposed to lead to the market regulating itself, that is, by looking out for each individual's own interest positive outcomes are inevitable. As Greenspan has just said, "I have found a flaw in this model." The flaw isn't actually what Greenspan noted but rather a misunderstanding of what is required for the trickle down effect to occur. There needs to be more wealthy people than 1% of the population. With that few in control of spreading the wealth (which is exactly what trickle down economics is, just with voodoo rather than choice) there simply is a stop to how far it goes. As with a bottle of water that has just been emptied eventually the drops stop even if you can still see water collected in the container.

What is nice about Obama's economic plan, and yes even the spending he proposes, is that it lowers the level at which Adam Smith's description plays out so that rather than counting on the wealthiest to spread the wealth, the middle and upper middle class are at the top and their wealth, in the form of small businesses, trickle down to those with less. Obama's spending proposals help with this by elevating many of the burdens on the small business owner, such as health care for it's workers.

Will this cost money we don't have? Yes. But what it will likely lead to is more people working and owning their own business and therefore more people able to pay taxes leading to a lessening of the national debt. Short term loses for long term gains, rather than freezing everything so that no progress can be made.

With one day to go, I've inched closer to Obama.

The Rational Moderate

Obama's 30 min Infomercial

2008-10-29T12:40:00.003-04:00

I'm going to be watching this very closely tonight mainly because I'm not convinced that I want to vote for him. I am... (hushed silence)... an undecided voter. Yes, that's right the same undecided voter who the Daily Show referred to as "The Stupids," or as David Sedaris referred to as not being able to automatically pick between chicken or poopy-glass for dinner (immediately alienating vegetarians.) Still I am undecided.

But not between Obama and McCain. No, the political romance I once had with McCain when I was young and naive was lost when he hired Rove's underlings to run his campaign. And I knew it was gone for good when he picked Sarah "I-don't-actually-know-what-socialism-is" Palin for his running mate. The choice for me now is between Obama and someone else, and in that I am undecided.

You see, I am a fan of the write in vote. I believe that our votes should not be for a candidate because we hate the other person, but because we truly want the person we vote for to have the job. For that reason, I will often pick people I know and admire and write their names in, such as myself for sheriff. (Although it's true I do that mostly out of an Andy Griffith fantasy.) What I am not convinced of yet, is that Obama is worthy of my vote. I've posted in the past about some of the problems I have with him and Biden, and I am not convinced that those issues have changed. What I really want from him is a declaration that he will role back many of the unprecedented executive powers that Bush took, but I suppose that would be too good to be true.

So tonight is his night to sway me, convince me that he is not just the lesser of two evils, but rather someone I would actually want to lead the country of which I am a citizen.

Otherwise, I may be writing in your name.

The Rational Moderate

Ted Stevens found Guilty

2008-10-28T12:17:00.003-04:00

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Seriously, how did Alaska turn into this election's Florida? The best part of the article is the quote from Palin on how big oil has this corrupting influence on the government and that is why she was elected to root it out. Nevermind that under her the oil companies got even more in bed with Alaska when she negotiated an increase in their payouts to the local citizens.

Thoughts on the Constitution (Part 1)

2008-10-23T18:16:00.002-04:00

I’m starting this series of my examination of the Constitution of the United States for a couple of reasons. 1) This has been on my mind since I started this blog. The Constitution was written as a way to legitimize a country and a government in a way that hadn’t been done before. We talk of the President of being the leader of the USA, but he/she isn’t. The Constitution is the authority of this country. 2) The first thing I said when I heard that Obama was running for president was, “Well, I can finally feel confident that at least one person running has actually read the constitution.” I still feel that way. Palin’s continual responses to describing the job of the Vice President shows me that she doesn’t have a clue what’s in the constitution. And that is frustrating considering that section directly matters to her possible future. It might be excused if I don’t know specifically what the constitution says about the VP, but she is running for VP... 3) There is an ideology behind the Constitution that deserves to be explored. There is sometimes a divide between idealists and pragmatists, but the Constitution is really the best of both. An ideal of a government that is run by the rule of law and not the whims of power hungry maniacs that is tempered by pragmatic compromises and steps to make that ideal a reality. So, I’ll start at the beginning, giving the passage and then my thoughts and I would encourage anyone who has any comments to please add it to the comments section below. Think of it as like Oprah’s book club, only, you know, important. (At the very least let me know if you think I'm wasting my time.)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Right from the start we see the ultimate authority for this document: the people. Not, as past monarchies and such had, divine right or genetic lineage, but rather the people who will be ruled by this document allow themselves to be ruled by it. I recognize in this the ideals of the social contract theory most well known by Thomas Hobbes. The idea of a social contract theory works like this: Imagine a state of no government and no authority (so no family members in charge either). In this state of nature, as Hobbes refers to it, we would all ultimately be in a constant state of war against each other because we would all have wants and desires that would be limited by either resources or other’s wanting the exact same things. In this state we simply cannot trust one another to make deals or keep pacts. It is every person for themselves. What happens in this state of nature however is while we are free to pursue whatever end we need or want, we are simply never going to be able to get anywhere near all of the things we could possibly need or want. This is because no matter how strong or intelligent one person may be over others, they are never so far ahead that any other person can’t find a big enough rock to bash their brains out. Lucky for us we are capable of reason and recognizing that it is in our best interest to try and make peace with others to be able to have any chance of achieving our own ends. To achieve this peace requires us to give up some of our freedoms (at least as much as we expect everyone else to give up) to an authority whose sole purpose is to help ensure peace. The people, because it is rational and the only way to ensure we can achieve any of our ends, give their authority over themselves to a governing body.

Many politicians remark that their real boss is the American people, but that is only true to a certain degree. In one way it is true because we can vote, even a step removed, on offices of government and in another way it is true because we are the one who ultimately give up our authority to the Constitution. But once we give up that authority, as we did when the Constitution was ratified, we are no longer the main entity in charge. The Constitution itself becomes the sole authority of the government.

And the reasons why we would ratify the Constitution are given in a very social contract ideal way: to establish justice, to insure domestic peace, for common defense, for the promotion of general well being, and to keep ourselves as free as we can understanding that perfect freedom leads to us pragmatically having little to no freedom.

The Rational Moderate

And this is why McCain got his party's nomination...

2008-10-20T22:50:00.002-04:00

... because there really are great people who are conservatives and/or Republicans who aren't like the idiots that made these bumper stickers or scream the obnoxious things from the earlier videos I posted. Let's face it, the people who are behaving the most obnoxiously are not the people who voted for McCain in the primaries but rather those who voted for Huckabee or Romney. McCain, just like Obama over Hillary, got his parties nod because the majority of members were sick and tired of the same old crap that we've had from the Bushes and Clintons and were ready for a more moderate fresh start.

And while both candidates are championing there ticket as the one of true change, McCain's actions, from his hiring the same bozos who trashed his campaign in 2000 to get W. in the white house, to his picking Palin who is simply not qualified and not intelligent enough to pick it up, to his campaign stunts such as suspending his campaign to help fix the economy, to his abandoning the economy as an issue to focus on Bill Ayers a domestic terrorist who has tenuous ties to Obama at best and that even McCain claims to not care about yet constantly bring up, to his using the same company and tacit of robo/auto calling that again smeared him so disgustingly in 2000, these actions do not point to the McCain that the Republican primary voters wanted nor voted for. McCain has let those people down and he should be ashamed of himself.

As I wrote in an earlier comment, some argue that he is ashamed and that is why he has come across so angry in that he really is an honorable person. All that says to me is if that is true, he is a terrible leader since he is the one who supposed to be in charge of his campaign. If he can't do that right, what hope do we have that he'll lead the nation right?

The people in this video deserve better from him. They're standing behind him, but I don't buy that he's standing behind them.

The Rational Moderate

Wow

2008-10-19T19:45:00.001-04:00

The Rational Moderate

3rd Debate Wrap-up

2008-10-16T12:38:00.002-04:00

CBS - Obama 53% to McCain’s 22% with undecided voters

CNN - Obama 58% to McCain’s 31%

MSNBC - Obama

Fox News - Obama

Media Curves - Obama 60% to McCain’s 30%

BBC - Their review of “expert” verdicts was 4 for Obama and 3 for McCain with no tie. Their analysts Kevin Connolly gave the win to the American Voters which is not only lame but proof that he hasn’t been paying attention.

I can’t believe I didn’t include ABC news before now - Oh, that’s because their web site stinks and I can’t find it despite a huge link to “Polls” and “Click Here For More Polls” - stupid disney network

My Take - First, Schieffer should moderate every debate. I’m a fan now. I’m getting the podcasts for Face the Nation right now.

Second, I thought McCain started well and then went into lala land with some ridiculous statements including talking about the “health” of women as code for “give me an abortion so I can go back to whoring around,” his incessant muttering that he knows how to do everything to fix every problem we face without ever telling anyone else despite his being in a position of authority already by being a senator, his stating that he’ll freeze every spending program except for three and then describing how he’ll spend money on these same problems, and, one more for abortion that made me feel like I had my own Life on Mars experience, how he wouldn’t use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for the Supreme Court but thought that anyone who agrees with Roe v. Wade would not be qualified. (In fairness this isn’t a direct contradiction but rather he thinks there is a correlation between agreeing with Roe v. Wade and being wrong on a host of other issues that would not make one qualified. I still found it jarring.)

Third, Obama was fine. Not spectacular, not making any mistakes that contradicted or confused his position. He seemed exactly the same as the last two debates so I guess I didn’t think he did too well, but the polls again disagree with me. It’s likely because of the reasons I gave about McCain. He does seem erratic. I know Schieffer was hammering them both of the negative comments, specifically Obama’s erratic comment, but that’s the way he looked to me. You can make a partisan comment and still be right. Obama, on the other hand, never had that nervous energy that McCain kept showing up in his odd quips, sarcastic lines, and laughing at his own jokes. As I said last time, I think this is done and Obama will be the next president. But there is one last chance for a turnaround for McCain - he finally appears on Letterman tonight. After canceling with Dave by saying he was suspending his campaign and flying immediately back to Washington to try and fix the problem, Dave got a feed into Katie Couric’s anchor booth to see McCain sitting there waiting to do an interview. Needless to say, Dave spent the better part of the episode and the weeks to follow calling out McCain about it, describing the move as “fishy.”

The Rational Moderate

The Argument From Authority Fallacy

2008-10-15T12:52:00.002-04:00

I always love a reason to bring up and discuss a logical fallacy. Recently a letter has been signed by every winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in science that endorses Barack Obama for president. At the face of it this looks like an example of the argument from authority fallacy which basically states that just because someone is in a position of authority does not mean that the views the express are correct. So while it shouldn't be argued that these are individuals who excel in their chosen fields, it does not follow that their political arguments are sound.

There are some exceptions to this rule. One is if the individuals are describing something that is in their field of expertise. This letter specifically addresses the scientific issues that have been hurt by the Bush administration and which look to be better understood and appreciated under an Obama administration. In this sense, the fallacy is still true, we shouldn't just accept their conclusions because of their authority, but since it is their field of expertise we can give their opinion more weight than we would if it wasn't their field of expertise. In this case, the weight of their authority and the weight of the evidence of their position leads to accepting their position.

Now it is important to understand that their endorsement is really only about science and technology with a passing nod to the notion that these are the tools we must use to fix the other mounting problems we face. So, if the economy and national defense are more important to you, then you would have to decide if science and tech are more important than other factors such as diplomacy, military strategy, and invisible hands then you might agree with these Nobel Laureates. But their being Nobel Laureates isn't sufficient by itself to make the conclusion true.

The Rational Moderate

Calling Someone a Terrorist is a Form of Terrorism

2008-10-12T10:56:00.005-04:00

Falsely invoking terrorism is a form of terrorism. If the idea behind terrorism is to terrorize (use tactics to make others instantly and incredibly afraid) some group into doing either a) what the terrorist wants and/or b) something other than what the group would normally do, then the outcome of calling someone a terrorist is to get others to be afraid of being around or associating with that individual. Since 9/11, the US has been in the thrall of the word terrorism. It has been used over and over to make us afraid of “others” in the world who would do us harm. For some, such as myself, this can become numbing. I don’t tend to think much about anyone labeled a terrorist anymore since it is used so often and incorrectly.

Now the definition I am using to describe terrorism may be objected to as being too broad, as it may include such tactics as using fear to get someone to stop smoking, or brush their teeth, or be good or receive a lump of coal at Christmas, or worship one specific God or spend eternity listening to New Kids on the Block. I added the qualifiers instantly and incredibly to offset the difference between simple fear and the full blown terror that terrorism is attempting to invoke. The fear involved in terrorism arises from sudden and unexpected actions that is of a much grander scale than the examples of fear I gave earlier. And this leads to my conclusion that given the climate of our country and the rhetoric of its leaders since 9/11, calling someone a terrorist who has not done the actions of a terrorist is an act of terrorism. It is an attempt to make someone so suddenly afraid of that individual that they will abandon their previous way of living and thinking and adopt one more in line with the invoker or will at least stop what they were doing.

Lately, McCain/Palin supporters have gone in public and proclaimed Obama a terrorist (see last post.) Now I’m not saying this is representative of all of his supporters, nor am I disagreeing with my earlier post that most of these individuals are mostly saying these things to rile those they see on the other side of the ticket. But to use the term terrorist to describe a Senator who is running for President is to try and scare someone into either a) voting for the other party or b) getting them to not vote for someone else, or not at all.

I’m calling them out as terrorists.

The Rational Moderate

We're in the News, Bethlehem PA

2008-10-10T14:19:00.003-04:00

Well, apparently McCain and Palin held a rally at Lehigh Uninversity the other day, right in the heart of southside Bethlehem. I'm sorry I didn't hear about this until it was too late, because I certainly would have gone down there to talk with some of the supporters. But that isn't what is making the news. Rather it, at first, was the head of the the Lehigh County Republican Chairman Bill Platt's asking the crowd, "Think about how you'll feel on Nov. 5 if you see the news that Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, is president of the United States." Now, I don't actually have a problem with calling someone by their full name, but some are referring to this as a wink and a nod to Obama being a terrorist, or secret Muslim, or related to Saddam because middle names carry over.

But while McCain was here taking about his opponent he was interrupted by my neighbors shouting "socialist," "terrorist," and "liar." On top of that, there are some very interesting individuals on video making the same claims, only this time in Ohio:

But again, here are my neighbor's reactions:

Now, I really love living in Bethlehem and that's even knowing that an idiot like Michael Behe (intelligent design proponent who cannot come up with a new argument for his position and does not respond to the thousands of articles, experiments, and arguments that counter his views) is working over at Lehigh, but I'm really worried. I'm worried for two reasons. 1) These people are really like this and believe the things they are saying, or 2) They are so easily caught up in the crowd that they are saying things they don't really believe to get a rile out of those who disagree with them. I actually think it is the latter, but what worries me about that position is that it is counter to exactly what this country needs and to what I am sure a majority of people from all political positions want which is to actually have conversations about the things that matter. I don't think you should be uttering things you don't believe to get on the other's nerves. So cut it out Bethlehem, and Ohio, and every other place where this kind of nonsense is happening.

The Rational Moderate

Debate, Round 2

2008-10-08T13:17:00.002-04:00

CBS - Uncommitted voters went with Obama 40% to 26%

CNN - Obama

MSNBC - Obama (but this one seems particularly skewed)

Fox News - Obama

Media Curves - Independents for Obama 52% to 34%

BBC - didn’t really have anything on their own but linked to Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe who called it a tie which gives it to Obama.

My Take -

I thought it was ugly. I thought Obama avoided answering some questions and he needs to stop doing that. It is a strength for him. While some politicians do better by moving the question into a direction better suited to what they want to talk about, it is worse when he does that because he can specifically answer the question and should.

I thought McCain attacked Obama too much with things that were easily responded to, such as his arguments about Obama “invading” Pakistan or his record on tax increases.

I thought McCain started off looking angry and ended up looking really flustered and nervous. The weird jokes he made, the dropping of the microphone into his hand when he finished a question... these are the actions of someone who is really nervous.

I think McCain’s really worried, and I think it’s going to get really, really ugly.

The Rational Moderate

VP Debate Wrap Up

2008-10-03T11:06:00.003-04:00

Polling wrap up on last night’s VP debate. (Again, I’m not linking to these so if you doubt me check out a lovely thing called “google”)

CBS - Biden, as more uncommitted voters went his way. Though Palin’s numbers did increase as far as knowledge and preparedness (though I can’t imagine they could have gone down considering...)

CNN - Biden, though again Palin did better than expected.

MSNBC - Biden

Fox News - Biden - I could actually find the poll this time. Commentator Aaron Bruns gives it to Biden, but thinks it won’t have an effect on voters whereas Palin has reassured her base that she can handle the job.

Media Curves - Isn’t up, though commenters who saw their results said once again independents favored Biden.

BBC - commentator Kevin Connolly gives it to Palin, but again prefacing that with the fact that she was expected to fall on her face and didn’t rather than on her making any decent points. If not for that he would have called it even.

My Take: Yeah, I admit that I was watching this for the same reason that millions of NASCAR fans watch cars driving around in circles - I wanted to see a fire ball explosion. And yeah that didn’t happen. But paying any attention to Palin’s answers to the questions compared to Biden, it is clear that she doesn’t know what she is talking about but just managed to hide it better than she has in her interviews. What I thought was interesting was that Biden never once attacked her on anything. He defended against attacks on him by her, but never attacked her directly on anything about her experience or her being a maverick. (I’m so sick of that word I could scream) This was clearly calculated and I think it worked as instead of getting bogged down into what is a monumentally bad decision by McCain, he basically ignored her while coming off as gracious. One of the biggest fears for Obama’s side was that Biden would come across as a big overbearing bully against Palin, but by ignoring her and her *ahem* experience, he avoided that trap.

The Rational Moderate

Cracked Skepticism

2008-10-02T14:07:00.002-04:00

Cracked has gone from a terrible revamped magazine to a pretty decent website.

In honor of the first word in the title of this blog, I really enjoyed this article on several mysterious non-mysteries.

When I was a child I was terrified by the Bermuda Triangle. The idea that there was a particular part of the ocean where boats and planes would just disappear made me wonder why someone wasn't stopping people from passing through that region.

Then I got a little older and read a little more and found out that the triangle was really more of a trapezoid of sorts and I thought, "Holy Crap! This is larger than I thought! Why isn't the Coast Guard doing something?"

Then I got a little older and read a little more and found out that the area of the ocean where the triangle is has about as many if not fewer disappearances as any other well traveled part of the ocean and I thought, "Holy Crap! The ocean is a death trap! Why would any one travel anywhere overseas?"

And then I got a little older and read a little more...

The Rational Moderate

A Reasonable Libertarian Position

2008-09-30T11:53:00.003-04:00

Sometimes it can come across that all I do is complain about everything without offering something positive or constructive about a solution to a current problem. Well, I'm not really going to offer something positive here myself but offer a link to an article by Jeffery A. Miron who is an economist at Harvard University (not that being form Harvard makes his argument carry more weight.)

He argues that the best thing we can do is not bailout these companies, but rather let them declare bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

Now I'm not saying that we should follow Libertarian economic principles, but rather here is a Libertarian who is making a good argument for returning to the earlier economic regulations while allowing the market to punish those who screwed up in the hopes that they won't do it again.

Read it here.

The Rational Moderate

And the 1st debate winner is...

2008-09-27T12:12:00.003-04:00

Polling wrap up on the debate (I'm not linking all of these - feel free to google):

Jon Taplin - Leans towards Obama, but thinks the media will call it a draw.

Media Curves.com - gives it to Obama with Obama sweeping the independents category.

CBS poll gives it to Obama, but in the category of decisions about Iraq, give it to McCain. Uncommitted voters lean towards Obama.

CNN had Obama winning overall and sweeping the categories.

Fox News - can’t seem to find a straight answer anywhere. If I was cynical I would take that to mean that their polls also show Obama winning the debate.

MSNBC - polls have Obama

BBC - Their commentator gave it to McCain, but only slightly. Their round up of other commentators ended up as 4 for Obama, 2 for McCain, and 2 a draw.

My Take - I’m not sure. It is hard for me to distinguish between what I thought and what I think other people would think about what was happening. I thought Obama failed in one area I thought he was good at: directly answering a question. He was likely the first politician I had ever seen do this in a debate in the primaries and I was sad to see it go away last night. I thought McCain did well, even if I didn’t agree with many of the things he said he at least seemed to answer the questions a bit more than Obama. I thought that people would lean towards McCain as the winner in this over Obama, as he lead the discussions and put Obama on the defensive to which again, Obama picked up the Biden Bug and just rambled on. But after looking at these polls, Obama seems to have really taken it. Go figure.

The Rational Moderate

Bailout Blitz pt 2

2008-09-25T14:21:00.004-04:00

This was Cynical-C's quote of the Day from a Forbes article called "Bad News for the Bailout":

"In fact some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

'It's not based on any particular data point,' a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. 'We just wanted to choose a really large number.'"

Remember kids, this is just the bottom figure of what is being proposed, it could go higher.

The Rational Moderate

Bailout Blitz

2008-09-24T10:50:00.004-04:00

I haven't posted in a bit because things are economically, really, really ugly right now and I'm not sure I have a handle on it. I do know that the bailout proposed by Henry Paulson is a terrible, terrible thing if passed as is.

Here is what I know:

1) For one thing it costs at least 700 billion. This is the figure that is being touted around the media but it's important to remember that this is not the cap, it is the bottom number of how much this could cost us, the taxpayer.

2) As it stands we would be buying up this junk stock for at least twice its value and because it is junk we would (as tax payers) lose even more money on the deal. And if by some small miracle there is any profit to be made on these we won't see any of it as it will go to the companies we are bailing out.

3) Part of this will go to prop up foreign banks who are in trouble.

4) The CEOs of these companies will not be taking any hits as far as their "golden parachutes" goes - that is, when they leave they will still take with them millions to billions of dollars. You destroyed your company and our economy? Here's an extra couple of million to see you home safely.

5) Two of the most left and right polar NY Times op-eders Krugman and Kristol agree for probably the first time ever that this bailout is a bad idea, thus signaling the apocalypse. I know someone right now is shouting "Fallacy. Argument from authority!" Look, I'm not saying they are right, I'm simply pointing out that this isn't a plan that automatically causes banner waving for your home team. ("Go Independents!")

6) There is a clause in the bailout that gives Paulson a ridiculous amount of power and a complete blank check (see # 1). It specifically states: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Wow.

7) Democrats have a history of caving to fear mongering politics of the Republican leaders. Right now it doesn't look like they are going to let Paulson have his way thanks to Dodd and Reed, but I'm still worried.

I will tell you my hope - that this will finally splinter the Republican party into two different political parties. One party, the minority, would resemble the current GOP with strong support from the religious right and corporate welfare proponents. The other will resemble or be subsumed into the Libertarian party as most Republican voters I've talked to actually resemble Libertarians far more than they resemble Republicans. This will then set a precedent on the Democratic party to splinter into two more parties and we will finally have some real choices. Again, this is just my hope.

The Rational Moderate

Lex Luthor Thwarted Again

2008-09-12T10:43:00.003-04:00

On June 24, 2008, it was discovered that the prominent fictional villain Lex Luthor had been thwarted in his plains to tamper with the water supply of Rockwell County in North Texas. Luthor's plans were disrupted by the geniuses of the county who turned off the water supply to all of the fire hydrants forcing Luthor to abandon his idea of placing liquified kryptonite (deadly to Kryptonites and harmful in large doses to humans) into the water supply. One minor downside to this was the loss of a home, as when the fire department came to douse the flames there was no water in the hydrant to put out the fire. Clearly a small price to pay for putting a stop to the fictional antagonist in the manner of the DHS and TSA.

When Lois Lane interviewed a local official he told her that next they were planning on removing all of the county's food to ensure that Luthor wouldn't be able to poison them through their love of "eats".

The Rational Moderate

Good Thing/Bad Thing... Sarah Palin

2008-09-10T12:24:00.005-04:00

Just as I did with Joe Biden, the point of this exercise is not to argue whether or not Palin is good for McCain to win the election, but rather is she a good choice for us/US.

Good thing... She’s a woman. Sorry, this does matter. It will be the first woman vice president in United States history. The fact that either side winning will be an momentous historic event is a great thing.

Bad thing... the Economy.

1) Tax and Spend: Check

Alaska, No 1 in taxes per resident and No 1 in spending per resident. Remember kids - being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong.

2) Doesn’t get the current crisis: Check

Thought Frannie Mae and Freedy Mac were a drain on taxpayers money before the government stepped in. In other words, privately owned business was a non existent drain on tax payers before, so the current Republicans shouldn’t step in now when it actually will cost taxpayers money?

3) B.S. on past Finicial Dealings: Check

a) Ebay plane was not sold on ebay, and ended up losing money on the deal when it finally was sold. (Not surprised McCain got this one wrong since I doubt he could spell ebay let alone know what it is.)

b) Her comments on the Bridge to Nowhere, despite media and bloggers saying otherwise, was dead on. She did say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” She said “Thanks” and took the money to build it. Then when the pressure was on about it being a colossal waste of money she said “No Thanks” and then KEPT THE MONEY!!!

c) She took a $60 dollar a day per diem (supposed to be used for staying overnight at hotels when traveling) for 312 days she spent at home. Ahh, to make $60 a night off of the taxpayers to sit around and worry about the end times...

d) Doesn’t get how oil that comes from the ground gets to your car. Opening up areas in Alaska and off shore drilling will not help the current gas situation for at least a decade and it’s likely it won’t even help then. You don’t just dill in a post attach a hose and pull up your car. Paris Hilton is wrong - don’t follow her advice.

Good thing... Ties to the Alaskan Independence Movement. A group of people who want to vote on whether or not the state of Alaska should secede from the USA. Don’t worry, they make too much money off of the rest of us to leave. Still, me as a 17 year old would have thought that was pretty cool, and I guess I still do.

Bad Thing... Religious Fundamentalist. Anyone who thinks we are living in “end times” (the view that the apocalypse is imminent and all good Christians of the very specific and narrow correct kind will ascend to heaven while everyone else will be screwed) and is a) sincere in this belief and b) happy about it should not be running for political office. The point of such positions as President and Vice President is to lead the country towards a better future than the past. But if you sincerely believe that the future is going to be coming to an end very soon then you don’t really have that motivation, do you? So the best thing to do is to make the few remaining days you have on this earth pleasant for you and your buddies before thing get really awesome for you and your buddies. And those others, heck, their lives right now will seem like a dream compared to what’s in store for them. Moral of the rant: Don’t elect any religious fundamentalist who thinks the end of the world in Thursday. And don’t forget that these two will be picking Supreme Court justices. Goodbye freedom and choice, hello social conservatism and state-sponsered religion. Frankly, this should be enough to make Libertarians take another look at Obama (though they still shouldn’t vote for him).

Good Thing... Outed corrupt politicians who were members of her own party. She basically got Randy Ruedrich and Gregg Renkes to resign for conflicts of interests after she resigned her post as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest.

Bad Thing... It’s clear she doesn’t know anything necessary about being VP because the Republicans have taken her and hidden her away to prep her before she has any real interactions with the press or with Biden at a debate. The Republicans are trying to sway this into an anti-media hoedown, saying that she will when the campaign feels she will be treated with dignity and respect. Just like the speech she gave at the RNC (written well before they knew who the VP choice would be), she won’t speak until she has all of the lines memorized and the campaign is certain a reporter won’t ask anything that will throw her off the script.

And the winner is.... Bad Thing. Really, really, really bad thing. Seriously, did you look at the superficial garbage that makes up anything on the good list. Sure, they are good - I didn’t write things there that I didn’t think were actually good points, but jeesh. There are two main areas to asses a political candidate: their social policies and their economic policies. She fails, spectacularly, at both. Some of the other positives that are running out of the mouths of Republican pundits like pus from the drain hole from my dog’s operation (don’t worry he’s on antibiotics) are: 1) She has executive experience. Yeah, as Mayor of a town 7000 and as Governor of a state with 670,000 (for only 20 months) that is about as much experience managing people as I have running the high school marching band. 2) She’s had international experience in fending off the unwanted advances of Russia. Anyone who seriously thinks she has had any real dealings with Russia is a political hack. 3) She was in charge of Alaska’s national guard so she has military experience. The one does not lead necessarily to the other. She is in charge of Alaska’s national guard for state issues, but not in charge of them for national issues. She doesn’t really get to decide anything of importance about them except in how to get them to clean the local memorial statues. She is a terrible, terrible choice.

The Rational Moderate

The Ann Coulter Effect

2008-09-06T11:27:00.002-04:00

First of all, what happened to Coulter? I haven't seen her making any idiotic statements for awhile now. Isn't this her time to shine?

But on to the heart of the matter: Something very strange is happening with the Republican Party. The latest example is this ad. What is basically happening is that the Republicans are taking the slogans and arguments of the Democrats and using them against the Democrats. Obama's main points are we need change and not more of the same which McCain will bring. Here the Republicans are saying we need change and not more of the same which Obama will bring.

WTF?

They are so unoriginal that they cannot come up with their own message? What does that say to people about their ability to come up with new and innovative ways to help the economy or to think beyond 1950's Lex Luthor comics to figure out how to actually prevent terrorism rather than dehydrate me on a plane.

But this ad really reminds me of the arguing tactics of one Ann Coutler. If you've never read any of her writings you should because 1) it is a great way to start learning about logical fallacies and 2) those times when she isn't butchering logic she has a very simple strategy - take the opposing argument against yourself and adopt it as your own. Don't change anything, just switch the names. If the Democrats are arguing that Republicans are trying to hurt endangered animals by messing with the endangered species list, the Coulter method would argue the Democrats are trying to hurt endangered animals by messing with the endangered species list. Now it seems clear that the Republican strategists for McCain are followers of Coulter's methodology. I really think they ought to reconsiders this approach, but I supposed if you only ever hear one side of a situation, such as only hearing Coulter and watching fox news (or only listening to Olberman and watching MSNBC), then you can get away with this.

The Rational Moderate

An Interesting Take on the RNC

2008-09-05T10:05:00.003-04:00

via Boing Boing

Douglas Rushkoff has written an interesting piece on his reaction to the Republican National Convention. While I did not watch all of it myself (I can only stand so much banner waving - rah rah rah go team go!) some of what I saw did mirror Rushkoff's sentiments. I couldn't believe that they were making fun of community organizing. Isn't that what the Republicans are supposed to want? Don't they want less big government and more small local communities taking care of each other. Or was that just the Regan and prior eras of the Republicans? Despite their evangelizing about Regan (some compared Palin to Regan which is ludicrous) I actually doubt that they would have Regan as their nominee if he came on the scene today.

One of the biggest problems the Republicans have as a coherent philosophy is the clash between social conservatism (read religious), economic conservatism (read invisible hand), social libertarianism (read mind your own business), and corporate conservatism (read corporate welfare). When your party is composed of some clearly contradictory foundations it's no wonder they can perform the verbal acrobats they do to convince voters to look their way. I'm no fortune teller, but if the individual voting Republicans start to realize that half of the party fundamentally does not agree with them we could finally see the multi-party system we so desperately need.

The Rational Moderate

Media Apologizes to McCain/Palin

2008-09-04T11:22:00.004-04:00

While I am at work on the next installment of good thing/bad thing for Sarah Palin, here is an apology from the media to the Republicans. If you haven't heard, the Republicans have decided that the war on drugs, the war on terror, and the war on education (No child left behind = everyone graduates whether or not you deserve to) should also expand to the war on journalism. Not only have the Republicans been badmouthing the media because they have actually asked questions about Palin's experience - something that wouldn't have been as big an issue if McCain et al. weren't running mainly on that idea - but they have also been arresting them along with protesters at the GOP convention.

I love Huckabee's line about the media uniting all of America behind McCain and Palin. Wow. I must have missed that shift in the polls.

The Rational Moderate

Take Me Out of the Ball Game...

2008-08-29T11:12:00.003-04:00

via Boing Boing

Apparently there is a rule in place at Yankee stadium that during the national anthem and "God Bless America" you are not allowed to leave your seat to go to the bathroom. If you do you will be forcibly removed from the stadium. Now, Yankee stadium is privately owned and when you purchase and use your ticket you agree to a whole host of regulations that I'm sure you know nothing about (see my post on never talking to the cops) and can easily get you ejected. But with baseballs rapidly declining popularity I really doubt this will help bolster that nostalgic feeling for anything other than being a child and having to do the pee pee dance while your parent talks to an old friend they just happened to run into while en route to the restroom.

Now Yakee stadium is being sued by NYCLU, though it seems like the only case they have is to argue that the use of uniformed officers, even if off duty, takes this case back into an issue of a state prohibiting free speech - or the freedom to not engage in speech you disagree with when your bladder is pounding at your door.

The Rational Moderate

Good thing/Bad thing... Joe Biden

2008-08-26T13:16:00.003-04:00

In this latest installment of the subtle and brilliantly titled Good thing/Bad thing... I will examine Joe Biden as the vice presidential candidate. This brief article will not focus on whether or not he is a good or bad choice for Obama, but rather or not he is a good or bad choice for us/US.

Good thing... He'll call McCain on his B.S. One thing we don't need as a country is the one side ignoring the blantant problems with the other side. This might sound like an issue that is good for Obama, but it really is good for the voters. If one side lets the other side get away with saying something factually wrong, inconsistant, or stupid, then it can be played up later as a tacit agreement and become ingrained as a positive thing with voters. I don't see Biden letting that happen.

Bad thing... Are you disgusted with the fact that 1% of the american population is in prison? How about that a large portion of those incarcerated are on drug related crimes, you know like the mary jane? Biden is responsible for such things as using RICO laws on drug offenders, the position of "Drug Czar," and many of the international anti-drug positions that screw over smaller nations by forcing them to join the US in this pointless war on drugs. And one more for the drug war... "Biden crime bill" which is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This increased the number of crimes that could lead to the death penalty including the nonviolent offense of drug trafficking. At least he's trying to get that 1% number down.

Good thing... 86% score from the ACLU. I know some people have a problem with the ACLU, but this is a group who will defend the crap out of you to be able to complain about them. They're big on the constitution which is one of the few reasons I like Obama: he was a constitutional lawyer which means that, unlike 99% of the rest of out government, he's read the constitution.

Bad thing... voted for the Patriot Act...twice. Want to know why you have to fill out a form with your name, address, driver's license number and promise to donate three goats to the local non-demoninational aztec congregation just to buy a box of Sudafed? Yep, it's that pesky worst law of the 21st century. The worst part is how vocal he has been against it, yet here it is.

Good thing... Supports sending troops to Darfur. If we really want the world to be a better place, and not just a better place for Halliburton, then we should be involved in real atrocities and not manufactured ones like Iraq. Too bad we're occupied elsewhere at the moment. (And it seems to me that if Bush/Cheney/McCain have their way will be occupied with Iran and Russia)

Bad thing... Supported DOMA and the federal anti-gay amendment. I know that politicians are supposed to try and screw up they're opposition, but I'm just not sure I understand why Biden doesn't want Larry Craig to be happy. Seriously, I'll never understand why people are adamantly in-favor of 1)getting themselves involved in other people's love life and 2) stopping the spread of loving and caring relationships. Well, I understand if you have stock in Halliburton, but otherwise...

The winner is... based on one more bad thing (support for a federal ban on smoking and so trying to ruin my cigar walks with my dog) I'm going to go with good for Obama, bad for us/US and my dog.

The Rational Moderate

More Fun with the TSA

2008-08-21T12:25:00.002-04:00

Here are four, count 'em, four more horror stories to add to your collection of the modern monster that gives us the shivers when the lights are low: The TSA

1. A personal account of being detained by Homeland Security and how it mirrors basic human rights abuses.

2. A TSA agent who think he knows best about how to inspect a plane. I'll give you a hint, it involves climbing up on really delicate and expensive equipment. On 9 different planes. But don't worry, the TSA is here to make you safer.

3. I think the title says it all: Airline captain, lawyer, child on terror 'watch list.'

4. And finally, pilot sues for being put on "no fly" list because it, you know, threatens his job.

I can't help but feel a certain connection between the current practices and abuses of the TSA and Homeland Security in general and the classic Stanford Prison Experiment. If you are unfamiliar with it, the experiment went like this: 24 students were given the roles of guards or prisoners in a fake prison setting. The idea was to test if abuses by prison guards, and I imagine acceptance by prisoners, was based on previous personality cues. To sum up: it wasn't. The experiment was shut down early because of the sadistic tendency of the guards and the emotional distress of the prisoners. If you have blanket power and authority over someone, you will abuse it in a way that would make you sick to your stomach outside of that situation.

The Rational Moderate

BioRobot for President

2008-08-14T20:34:00.002-04:00

via Boing Boing

I'm not sure what it's name is, but I'm voting for it.

Object in the way? Go around it. Very Taoist.

The Rational Moderate

McCain, you owe me a decent election!

2008-08-06T10:39:00.002-04:00

(Ok, maybe not owe...)

I really thought this presidential election was going to be great.

I believe that the reason we have the presidential race we do is that both sides were sick of the 20 year fight between the Clintons and the Bushes. Republicans went with McCain because he was so different than Bush. He spoke the truth and stood up for what he believed in even if it went against his party or what his base wanted to hear. I think that earned him some respect, not just from moderates and lefts, but from the rights who were anti-neocon as well.

That’s why this turn of events is so saddening. We really had a chance to have an amazing election between two wonderful candidates who weren’t like other politicians. We could actually have conversations about the best way to solve the problems we have without resulting to misleading information. The facts could be agreed upon by both sides and the difference could be up to the voters about which approach would be the one we wanted. But here we are, brought down into the same muck we’ve had to endure in the past.

McCain knows that offshore drilling won’t help the energy problem we are having. He said as much in the past. So instead of having a debate about the best way to solve the problem, we actually have to debate on the facts of the problem. The same problem is happening with the GOP ragging on Obama telling individuals to check their tire pressure to help reduce their gas consumption. The fact is that it will. But instead of agreeing on the facts and disagreeing on what should be done about it, the Republicans are stomping on the facts again.

So right now I blame McCain for not giving me and the American voter a presidential race to be proud of. I’m sure Obama will tick me off again too sometime soon, such as with the FISA compromise, but that was not about the presidential race - at least not directly. What McCain is doing right now is, and it needs to stop.

The Rational Moderate

Congratulations Phil Plait!

2008-08-04T09:52:00.003-04:00

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, has just been announced as the new President of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I've been wondering for a few years who would be a good choice to take over Randi's role as the face of the JREF and I pretty much drew blanks. I stand corrected. Phil Plait is a marvelous choice for the job and I look forward to him making the media rounds. What's great about Phil is that he has such enthusiasm for science and critical thinking that he never seems to come off as cynical. If you can track down the old Penn Jillette radio program that had Phil debating Joe Rogan on the Moon Hoax you'll see what I mean. Even though Joe is off his rocker, Phil never gets angry (though he does get exasperated at Joe's Gish Gallop).

I think this is good news for Sekptics, rationalists, and critical thinkers.

The Rational Moderate

Problem with...McCain's Ads

2008-07-31T10:48:00.003-04:00

"You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads, although I do notice he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for and not just what he's against," [Obama] said.

Here's the ad:

Problems with this ad:

1) He's comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. This would be known as a false analogy as they are both dumb as rocks and Obama is clearly intelligent. You can disagree with his positions, but if you don't think Obama is intelligent I'm going to bet you think the earth is 6,000 years old or Lizards control the government.

2) Obama is against off-shore drilling. Hmmm, I wonder why that would be true. Is it because off-shore drilling won't help the energy crisis we're experiencing? Between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, who do you think is more likely to continue letting the oil companies do what they want? Now granted I would like to hear what positive things Obama plans for the energy crisis, but his lack of support for offshore drilling just seems to make it clear that he understands the problem better than McCain.

3) Raise taxes. Ahh, the old standard. Democrat = tax and spend. Of course, we have a situation right now where our government is hemorrhaging money it doesn't have. So I guess that makes the other half: Republicans = do nothing and spend.

4) The biggest problem is ultimately the negativity. Nothing in that ad gives a positive message from McCain. In fact, judging from the statements in the ad alone, McCain could do and promote exactly the same things he accuses Obama of promoting. Nowhere does it say that McCain will drill offshore, or that McCain won't raise taxes. There is not a single instance of McCain saying anything positive about himself.

5) His smirking face at the end is not going to help him.

One of the reasons I thought McCain got the Republican nod was that it seemed like he wasn't going to pull all of the same old garbage. Republicans are just as sick of this negativity as Democrats and those of us who are independents were sick of it long before them. We had a chance with Obama and McCain, the first chance in as long as I can remember, to have a real positive campaign were both sides spent their time arguing for their positions and not kneecapping the other. I also think it is still possible, but only if we the public make it clear that this kind of nonsense will not fly.

The Rational Moderate.

YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS

2008-07-28T12:46:00.003-04:00

via cynical c

No. Really. I know you're thinking you don't have time for this. Seriously, watch it.

"Don't Talk to the Police." (Even when you're innocent.)

I think my favorite line from the officer was "off the record is like a unicorn - no such thing"

The Rational Moderate

Bush or Batman?

2008-07-25T16:58:00.001-04:00

via Cynical-C

The Rational Moderate

More Fun with the TSA

2008-07-24T11:07:00.003-04:00

Here are two stories to lighten your heart when you realize that you don't have to fly anywhere today. (My apologies for those reading this in an airport.)

This first article is about a CNN reporter who wrote critically about the TSA's security measures. Ever since then he is harassed by security in every airport he goes to. What makes this richer is that the TSA claims he is not on the watch list even though the airport security has told him he was.

The second article is about x-rated searches. Basically, if you have anything wrong with you - say a prosthetic leg - you can expect to be striped searched in a room with glass walls (don't throw stones) in front of anyone who wants a good show when your leg sets off the metal detectors. Oh, and you should be glad that your safer because they're making you do this. Why can't the video game = pornography crusaders help us out with this one.

The Rational Moderate

Zombies!!!

2008-07-23T10:42:00.001-04:00

via Boing Boing

Sorry it's been a while since I've posted. Here's something fun and creepy to hold you over.

The Rational Moderate

One Million!!!

2008-07-15T10:17:00.002-04:00

I've heard questions raised about the definition of a terrorist with regards to fighting in a war, for example the Colonies in the Revolutionary War. But I never thought about it this way before: can you be a terrorist if you are in the majority? If those who are in charge or are the majority go smacking around a minority group, is that terrorism?

The reason I ask is that the US Terrorist Watch List now has one million names on it.

The Rational Moderate

Oceanspray

2008-07-14T15:30:00.003-04:00

hmmm... ocean spray.

(Don't ask)

The Rational Moderate

More TSA Madness

2008-07-11T22:05:00.003-04:00

via Boing Boing

Here is a great article on a pilot encountering one of the many ridiculous rules being propagated and enforced by the TSA. In this case the pilot was not allowed to bring a piece of cutlery on the plane that is the exact same cutlery that is given to everyone on the plane. I love the header:

Propped up by a culture of fear, TSA has become a bureaucracy with too much power and little accountability. Where will the lunacy stop?

I wonder if anyone out there has complied a list of all the time-wasting, economic-trashing, 1950's-comic book-inspired rules that are in place now thanks to the current administration of the TSA.

The Rational Moderate

The Fourth Amendment

2008-07-09T22:15:00.002-04:00

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Goodbye. We'll miss you.

I just wish I could say that to all the politicians who voted for the FISA "compro*spit*ise."

The Rational Moderate

Problem with... Obama

2008-07-08T18:30:00.004-04:00

As I mentioned last time, I wanted to breifly touch on the controversy that is surrounding Obama and his support for the "compromise" on the FISA bill. This is the type of action that should make a lot of folks who supported Obama worry and makes people who didn't much care for him see why. For 7 years we've watched the executive branch of this nation abuse and overstep it's power. Let me rephrase that, we watched them assume more power and watched congress let them do it. This is one more instance. Now the cynic in me thinks that the democrats see this as an opportunity to use some of this power to make positive changes without realizing that is also what the republicans think and, well, usually what everyone thinks when grabbing for power. The problem here (and it's really a problem for both sides - how I long for a D&D die to explain political positions rather than the flip of a coin we have now) is:

1) They'll probably muck it up.

2) They won't be in power forever and their opponents will likely get that power back to use against them.

Obama, to some degree, gets the first point. See his addressing the outpouring of disgust on his website. But I don't think he gets the second. If you think that the executive branch has gone to far, and you're in a position to actually do something about that - do it immediately.

George Washington was given the option of being addressed many long winded and ridiculous titles but instead of taking those, along with the power that was being foisted on him, opted for the simple "Mr. President." I long for a leader who understands the importance of that.

The Rational Moderate

Problem with...

2008-07-04T12:00:00.003-04:00

Here is the first of a series of planned articles detailing the problems with the current candidates. Originally the first piece was on Obama and the FISA compromise, but this issue with McCain really got under my skin as I see it as a continual problem with Republican campaign tactics that I felt the need to write about first.

Problem with... McCain:

Lying on purpose or stupidity.

The latest attack on Obama is his supposed reversal of withdrawing troops from Iraq. McCain's attack is to argue that Obama has changed his mind and has adopted McCain's position on leabing an occupational force in Iraq -assuming we can get to the point where they are just an occupational force ala Japan and Germany and not really engaged in constant fighting.

But this is not true and they either know it or...

Yet, it's being spread around like gospel. Obama's big reversal. The fundamental problem is that Obama's position hasn't changed, it's just a lot more realistic than McCain's camp can wrap their heads around. Yes, the goal is withdrawal. But, how we go about that goal needs to be decided with the military advisors that are involved with the Iraq operation to ensure it goes well. It's as if the McCain camp believe that the day Obama is sworn in a swarm of helicopters will lift every troop out of Iraq.

Next Time: Problem with Obama

The Rational Moderate

Sad, Sad, Sad, Sad...

2008-06-23T11:45:00.004-04:00

George Carlin died.

Here are some quotes. I replaced any of the foul language with a number because he would have been pissed off by that which is just the way he liked it.

The Rational Moderate

Scratch any cynic and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.

A lot of people try to get out of jury duty by lying. You don't have to lie; tell the judge the truth. Tell him you'd make a terrific juror because you can spot guilty people [clicks his tounge] just like that!

Now here's another example of overprotection. Did you ever notice on the TV news, every time some guy with an AK-47 strolls onto a schoolyard and kills three or four kids and a couple of teachers, the next day, the next day, the school is overrun with counselors and psychiatrists and grief counselors and trauma therapists trying to help the children cope? [#1], when I was in school, someone came to our school and killed three or four of us, we went right on with our arithmetic. 35 classmates minus 4 equals 31. We were tough. We were tough.

Here's a bumper sticker I'd like to see: "We are the proud parents of a child whose self esteem is sufficient that he doesnt need us promoting his minor scholastic achievements on the back of our car."

This conversation is bound to turn up. Two guys in a street meet each other and one of them says, "hey, did you hear? Phil Davis died". "Phil Davis? I just saw him yesterday." "Yeah, didn't help. He died anyway. Apparently, the simple act of you seeing him did not slow down his cancer. In fact, it may have made it more aggressive. You know, you could be the cause for Phil's Death, how, do you live with yourself?"

I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to.

Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.

In America, anyone can become president. That's the problem.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.

I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I worry about my judgment when anything I believe in or do regularly begins to be accepted by the American public.

Better Fake Diamonds

2008-06-17T21:44:00.004-04:00

via Boing Boing

I read an article several years ago in Wired about the advent of artificial diamonds and the possibilities of their use. It's exciting to see that this avenue of research hasn't been crushed. The Smithsonian.com has posted an article about the new strides in this process. But, even more important (in my view) is the take on the real diamond industry and the true scarcity and trumped up value of diamonds that should really give you pause about selling those futures on tulips. I like this quote from the article:

Natural diamonds aren't particularly rare. In 2006, more than 75,000 pounds were produced worldwide. A diamond is a precious commodity because everyone thinks it's a precious commodity, the geological equivalent of a bouquet of red roses, elegant and alluring, a symbol of romance, but ultimately pretty ordinary.

I find it ridiculous the amount of money and energy spent on this rock as decoration when it is plentiful and can be used for so much more.

The Rational Moderate

What's Happening

2008-06-13T22:32:00.003-04:00

So, I have a great idea for a movie. Why doesn't someone remake Hitchcock's The Birds but without the birds? Oh someone did? You mean The Happening isn't a cool update to that classic 70's sitcom What's Happening with Rerun et al.? It sure as hell should have been.

Seriously, it is The Birds without the pesky flying things. And that would be fine if it wasn't so dull and so pointless and so not even interesting to look at. But most importantly for the theme of this blog, it's anti-science.

Throughout the film is the general premise that science can't answer everything. And that is true depending on the area you are investigating. For example, science can't really help us out with logical arguments. We use those for science, not the other way around. But the problem is that in this film science apparently can't answer questions about natural events. You know, stuff that happens in nature. You know, the stuff that science actually looks at and deals with all the time.

Whalberg's character is a science teacher who, while discussing the mystery of the disappearing bees, is happy with a student's response that some things are just an act of nature and cannot be explained. This pretty much cements him as one of the worst science teachers ever. It couldn't be worse if on the chalkboard he had written "Next Class: The Great Ideas of I.D."

If you can't explain a natural event with science then you don't just toss up your hands and say, "Oh well, guess I'll go mow the lawn." You do some research and you work on figuring it out. A science teacher should be encouraging students to study things we don't know about, but not from the viewpoint that we can never figure it out so don't bother. M. Night's past movies have always had some pseudo-science in them, and that's fine. But when he starts just out and out mishandling science, that's a crime against his audiences intelligence.

I won't get into how badly M. Night bungles evolution or neuroscience. I won't get into how bad the special effects were that garnered him the coveted "R" rating. I'll just leave it at this: if you are a skeptic, a scientist, or a friend of them, skip this one.

The Rational Moderate

Video Game Voters

2008-06-11T22:34:00.003-04:00

via GamePolitics

Now here is an organization I can get behind. It scares me that people who have no understanding of the medium (or the difference between the content and the medium) try to craft legislation about it. I'm not signed up yet, but I will definitely be checking them out.

The Rational Moderate

If Only...

2008-06-08T22:43:00.002-04:00

Via Boing Boing

Reading through this fake Google news manages to warm the heart and make you very sad all at the same time. I especially love the entertainment section.

The Rational Moderate

Free Rice!!!

2008-06-06T22:40:00.001-04:00

Well, not for you.

Check out this website that is able to donate rice through the UN World Hunger Program based on how many vocabulary words you can correctly define. Ok, not really based on that. More likely it's based on the idea that the more time you spend defining words the more time you spend looking at advertising on that page which is really paying for the free rice, but still...

My top ranking is a 41. Yours?

The Rational Moderate

Shoot the Photographers

2008-06-05T23:14:00.000-04:00

via Boing Boing

I like Bruce Schneier's take on the war on photographers that I've been blogging about. I think the part of comparing our strategies on combating terrorists to what we think would make a good movie or TV show is spot on. It doesn't seem like the people in charge of security in this country are spending as much time on reasonable solutions to security issues as they are dusting off their old, yellowed, unused action movie scripts they wrote in college, turning to the hack climax, and then retyping that as a memo on how to fight terrorists. For example, the idea that an amount of some dangerous liquid that they hope to confiscate before you board a plane could actually be stable enough to carry in your water bottle can only come from folks who really worry about what the diabolical mind of Lex Luthor will come up with this week. I got into an argument about this with a hotel clerk a few months back who, when I asked him to name the liquid that has this magical property of being easily transportable and at the same time can cause serious damage, replied, "C4."

At least I feel like I won that argument.

The Rational Moderate

Not Politicians, Campaigners

2008-06-03T22:30:00.000-04:00

Normally I think that while politicians of today stink, they aren't really any different from politicians of any age where there was some type of voting system. That's why there is a question mark after reason in this blog's logo. But I'm starting to question that position.

Scott McClellan was on Jon Stewart Monday night and said something that struck a nerve with me about the Bush's administration campaigning for war. This got me thinking about the type of leaders we really are getting in the US in this day and age that really is different from the politicians we had in the past. Todays politicians are better campaigners. They've been studying campaigning a lot harder and in a lot more detail within the last decade(s) than any politicians before. They've been studying how people think, what words sway them, what items of clothing will make a difference... all in an attempt to get their vote in a much more systematic and scientific way than ever before. And from this what do we end up with? Not people in charge who are necessarily capable of leading, but rather people in charge who know how to run a campaign better than others.

When in office, what do you think they will do? Will they suddenly become something else? Of course not. They will use the same skills that they have mastered that got them elected. This is why there was a campaign to get the US behind Bush's war in Iraq by only giving information to the public that strengthened their case while deliberately leaving out information that would weaken it. That is exactly what you do when running for office. And the politicians who keep winning will only get better and better at it.

The Rational Moderate

Wow Moments in Teaching

2008-06-02T00:08:00.000-04:00

I like this op-ed from Brain Greene. This paragraph in particular really strikes me:

...many students I’ve spoken to have little sense of the big questions those (scientific) technical details collectively try to answer: Where did the universe come from? How did life originate? How does the brain give rise to consciousness? Like a music curriculum that requires its students to practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science squanders the chance to make students sit up in their chairs and say, “Wow, that’s science?”

I'm always amazed at this same issue when it comes to other important areas of study, such as mathematics. Students are often taught math in a very dry and boring way even if they have a lively teacher. I always thought it would be better to teach math as a history of discovery. Why do we have calculus? What led to its creation? What problems did those who created it need to solve and why?

If the field of study doesn't have any Wow moments that can be shared with students, then find another discipline. At the same time, students should really try to not be too cynical with what they are being presented. A typical example I've had with students is describing humans walking on the moon for the first time. Neither myself nor the majority of the students I have taught were alive when Neil Armstrong took that step (and botched his line) and so we have a tendency to not realize how amazing that really was because it has always been a part of our lives. But, as one of my professors was fond of saying, other animals look at the moon and think, "Look at that bright light." We look at the moon and think, "That's a place where we can go." How cool is that?

The Rational Moderate

More Gender Issues...

2008-05-28T22:23:00.000-04:00

Via DailyMail

Keeping in line with the last post, I just read an article about researchers who claim to have found a gender difference in video game playing. Or have they? The article leaves a lot in the air. For one thing, what the heck game were they playing? The MRI apparently showed a greater amount of activity in the reward and addiction parts of the brain for the guys when they conquered more territory than for the girls. This is why, they claim, men are more attracted to video games than women. But is that really what they showed? Or have they just showed that a particular type of game is one that attracts more males than females?

Video games are an interesting phenomenon in that we are really living at the start of this new entertainment that I wouldn't be surprised to find mirrors the developments in radio, movies, and TV (heck probably even the printed word). But what I would really be surprised to find out is that there is actually something about video games as a medium that produces a division among the sexes. I have no doubt that some games will more likely draw male players and others will draw female players, but video games themselves mostly drawing males simply because they are video games and not because of the content? I'm skeptical.

The Rational Moderate

Let The Girl Play, Jerks

2008-05-27T23:18:00.000-04:00

via Seattle Times

A twelve year old girl kicks a whole lot of butt in the game of basketball. Jamie Nared has been playing with the boys team and is probably one of, in not the best player on their team. But for reasons that are ultimately stupid she's being kicked off the team.

Neal Frazer, who is the head of this Hoops organization said, "...the problem was the boys were playing differently against her because she was a girl. They'd been taught to not push a girl, so they weren't fouling her hard, and the focus had shifted from playing basketball to noticing a girl was on the floor with them."

He should resign immediately and the parents who complained should be ashamed of themselves. If she is good enough to play with the boys then she should, end of story. She can't play with the girls her age because, well, in one game the score was 90-7. And she can't play with the older girls because, well, older girls talk about things that a twelve year old probably already talks about but shouldn't.

I should also point out that the other boys who play with her seem fine with it. Only parents could be this stupid.

The Rational Moderate

Rachel Ray is Up With Jihads

2008-05-26T21:19:00.000-04:00

via Crooks and Liars

Some people have a hard time realizing how absolutely insane other people are. The truth is there are a lot of really crazy people out there. But what's worse, there are a lot of people who seem perfectly sane but still believe in ridiculous things. I'll leave it to you to decide which of the two categories the people who believe the following fall into.

Now, I'm not a fan of Rachel Ray. And I'm also not a fan of tattered scarves. But not in my wildest Kafka dreams could I actually equate Rachel Ray in a tattered scarf with islamic fundamentalism as these nut jobs do.

Sometime a cigar is just a cigar, a scarf is just a scarf, and a fantasy-prone personality is a fantasy-prone personality.

The Rational Moderate

MLM and Skepticism

2008-05-25T21:49:00.001-04:00

Via The Rogues Gallery

This post is a little break from the normal political shenanigans. I want to recommend that all of my readers (yes, all 2 of you) go and check out this article by Steve Novella at The Rogues Gallery blog on Multi-level marketing and nutritional supplements. Recently, one of our family members got involved with one of these schemes and I was flabbergasted that these types of business are still out there because they are just nonsense. Any job opportunity that requires you in order to make any money to get more people involved who are going to sell the exact same product as you to the same people is a job opportunity that goes against basic economics.

The companies work like this. They require you to recruit more people in order for you to make real money. But those people are also supposed to go out and recruit more people. All the while you are supposed to also be selling products. But those products are not where the real money comes from, it comes from recruiting more people. At some point you're just going to run out of people.

Now when we questioned this family member about the soundness of this company, implying that it sounded like a pyramid scheme, he replied that it the company said it was not an illegal pyramid scheme. Of course it's not, it's a perfectly legal one. Since there is some product involved that acts as the medium to push the money upstream, it doesn't fall into the same legal problems as a typical pyramid scheme does.

And their products always stink.

The Rational Moderate

You're going to kill us all...

2008-05-24T22:43:00.000-04:00

Via Skepchick

Stop expecting antibiotics for every little thing. If your kid has the sniffles they don't need amoxicillin, they need a tissue and some soap to wash their disgusting little hands. And not anti-bacterial soap. We need a ton of the bacteria that lives on us. It's good for us. Stop trying to get rid of them. They like you. You should like them too.

The Rational Moderate

Do we own our lives?

2008-05-22T22:11:00.001-04:00

via Wired

What does it mean to own our lives? Often in discussions on euthanasia (or less weighty tattoos) the argument that we own our bodies and so we can do what we want with them is made. And, at least on the surface, it seems like a reasonable claim. I can do what I want with my body as long as it doesn't harm another just like I can use my comic books how I see fit right up to the point where I use them to give someone a thousand paper cuts and they bleed to death. But what about the facts about our lives? Do we own our address as our address? Or our age? Or our social security number? Bruce Schneier has an interesting commentary on the need for a personal data privacy law, but without a clear understanding of what we can actually own, I'm not sure what can be done. I'm going to chew on this one for a bit.

The Rational Moderate

Hypocrites part 2

2008-05-20T22:20:00.001-04:00

via EFF

Actually, with politicians it could be about part x (x being a number that is so large I couldn't actually write it out in my lifetime) with no end in sight. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner just won a big case against Rep. Jim McDermott for an illegal wiretap. Of course, Boehner is also big on letting the telecommunications companies off the hook for all of their illegal wiretapping. Wiretap everyone else, just not me.

Now, as I posted before, this blatant hypocrisy doesn't make hi argument for the telecom immunity wrong (though I agree it makes him a jerk). What makes his argument wrong is because we don't want the precedent set that when someone in the government (specifically any branch that isn't the judicial) tells a company or an individual to do something that is known to be illegal that the person or company feels like they can't tell them to politely piss off.

The Rational Moderate

How Cool is This...

2008-05-19T22:52:00.000-04:00

via Mental Floss
The biggest problem facing many parts of the world is not war, or HIV, or Bush invading. It's a lack of clean drinking water. I'm not going to list the nasty things that people can pick up through the water, but just about any disease you can think of is in it. This seems like the best solution I've seen. This Lifestraw filters out just about any nasty thing you could suck up (except a couple parasites - but their working on it). Fantastic.

It costs about 3 bucks which is too much for many of the people in nations who need it, but that seems to me to be the right price point for donations. One trip to the ATM can give 5 people clean drinking water for a year. Keep your eyes on this.

The Rational Moderate

John McCain and the Hypocrite Fallacy

2008-05-17T22:10:00.000-04:00

So, John McCain is a hypocrite. No surprise, after all he is a politician. The problem is, this isn't a problem for his current argument that we should not negotiate with Hamas. This falls under what I call the hypocrite fallacy. Just because someone says one thing and then does another (that would include saying the opposite) this does not make their current argument wrong.

For example. You and I are taking a math class and failing miserably because we both spend too much time on fine web sites like Skeptics & Politics. After getting back our last exam (F's for us both) I turn to you and say, "You should really study more." Your typical first reaction is likely, "Yeah, look at your grade you jerk." And of course you are right. I am a jerk. I am not, however, wrong. You should study more.

The same fallacy applies here in saying that McCain is a hypocrite. Sure he is, but that doesn't make his argument wrong. It's wrong for a thousand other reasons, such as Obama never claiming he would talk with Hamas, but McCain having claimed differently in the past is not one of them.

The Rational Moderate

Good Thing/Bad Thing - Mayor of Muskogee

2008-05-16T22:34:00.000-04:00

Muskogee Oklahoma has a new mayor. 19 year old John Tyler Hammons beat out his 70 year old opponent to head the city of 38,000. Let's examine the good and the bad:

1 good- His first order of business is to set up an independent ethics commission and establish campaign finance reporting requirements.

1 bad- This always seems to be the "first order of business" the politicians claim they'll do to get elected. Will he actually do it? And who would actually serve on such a commission? Enquiring ethicists want to know.

2 good- He was president of both the Young Republicans and Young Democrats club in his High School.

2 bad- I actually think the proper place is to be pissing off both the Young Republicans and Young Democrats, but still...

3 good- This quote: "Politics stop at the door. If someone wants to talk politics I will literally leave the office and leave the building if I have to."

3 bad- Plugging up your ears and singing "la la la la la" is not the way to handle people who are telling you things you don't want to hear. Especially in your office where, you know, you're in charge.

Overall, I think the bad is more snarky than worrisome. So, here's to a good run Mayor Hammons.

The Rational Moderate

Video Game Violence

2008-05-15T13:49:00.000-04:00

How to approach this topic?

It's always hard to confront someone who has had a deep tragedy. While it may be alright for them to vent as they need, it is not alright for us to accept whatever they say just because they are appropriately grieving.

Ann Oakes-Odger testified at a British government commission on violence in cities that she believed that there is a direct connection between violence and video games in much the same way that there is a connection between subliminal messages on TV and our thoughts. And she's right. Only not in the way she thinks. There isn't any reason to believe that subliminal messages work either.

There simply is no link between video games and violence.

Another point she makes is through TV and video games, children become unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction. This seems like a compelling point right up until you spend any time with children and realize that not being able to tell the difference between reality and fiction is just how kids are.

The Rational Moderate

Photography is not a crime

2008-05-14T22:26:00.000-04:00

For some reason photography is the new skateboarding. Time and again photographers are getting harassed by police and security guards in the name of homeland security for doing what is perfectly legal. Only it's not really homeland security, it's the opposite. What it really does is waste the time of the FBI to track down these photographers just to appease Bubba the security guard who thinks he's hit upon the next conspiracy of dem der radical terrorists and, mercy me, only he can put a stop to it. I blame all of the ridiculous signs that state "Report Suspicious Behavior" without realizing that for most people thinking is a suspicious behavior.

Here's another story in case you think I'm exaggerating.

The Rational Moderate

85%

2008-05-13T21:31:00.000-04:00

That's the number from the latest survey about how many americans think there should be a science debate. It might be too late for the primaries but is it too much to hope for the general election?

Now normally this might fall into the category of the statistical fallacy (aka argumentum ad populum or "appeal to the people" which states that just because a large number of people think something is right doesn't make it so) but I think what this stat really shows is that people would take science issues into account when voting. Maybe that's why the candidates aren't doing it.

The Rational Moderate

Video Game Ratings

2008-05-12T21:39:00.000-04:00

One of the big issues that politicians, such as Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), like to talk about is the access of mature rated video games bought by minors. A new study released by the FTC shows that minors were only able to buy mature rated video games 20% of the time compared to 42% last year. Despite this improvement, legislators are still looking for ways to get the government directly involved. Gee, you think there might be better things to worry about with the world right now?

The Rational Moderate

A Positive Maryland Note

2008-05-11T22:04:00.001-04:00

Lately, it seems like nothing good is coming out of the government in Maryland (according to those I talk to who live there.) Well, here is something to be proud of. It seems that a man tried to get out of the proper divorce proceedings by initiating a talaq. This ritual, where a man simply says "I divorce thee" three times, seems to be enough to count in certain Muslim regions. Thankfully, Maryland is not one of them. I can't wait for the oncoming cries of "lousy activist judges."

The Rational Moderate

It's not like they have a computer in those caves...

2008-05-10T17:52:00.000-04:00

Apparently, due to budget cutbacks, we have lost one of our better analysts of al-Qaeda's use of media and internet, Daniel Kimmage. Heck, even if he stunk, to lose anyone who can read arabic and is actually sure that the web sites he was ogling were al-Qaeda's and not Obama's is a travesty. Here is one more wake up call for anyone who still believes we were ever in Iraq fighting terrorism, though they'll probably just hit the snooze button again.

The Rational Moderate