3rd Debate Wrap-up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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