Buy Books, DVD's etc.
|
| Click through here to browse and order Books, DVD's, etc.
|
| Political Books |
|
| Religious Books -- Not Fundamentalist! |
|
The Fundamentalist Xtians should not be allowed to hijack the language of Christianity. They are at least as much heretics to Christianity as the Arians and Gnostics of early Christian days.
Biblical inerrancy is not possible.
The books both above and below show the limitations of language and the impossibility of Biblical Inerrancy.
How can language be misused? Using General Semantics, this book was Written to explain Nazi propaganda and still used as a textbook
|
| Books - Popular Math, Post Enlightenment & Science |
|
This book explains why the above books on Christian Fundamentalism are politically important in America today.
Modern Society measures risk & predicts possible futures. The book below is a higly readable history of insurance, statistics and modern financial instruments.
Compare this to religion, in which it is presumed that the perfect society was known in the past and all that is necessary to do is to return to that perfect society.
Fascinating, highly readable and fun book on modern mathematics and its limitations. If you are interested in ideas, this is your book!
This is a collection of Hofstader's Scientific American articles. Again, a very fascinationg and highly readable book, requiring no mathematical background. (Buy it used - it is one of the books that will keep disappearing.)
Older, very fascinating book on mathematical ideas. Did you know there are three kinds of infinity?
|
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 |
| Comments on last night's Presidential debate |
Today in blogdom there is going to be a lot of discussion about the debate last night. The debates are aimed at influencing the undecided voters, and I made my decision long ago, so what I am trying to get from the debate is a better feel for who the two debaters are. There are only a few points that I consider worth discussing.Dealing with the recession and government deficitOne thing that McCain said really jarred me. Here we are clearly going into or already in a Recession, and his "solution" is going to be to cut government spending, enact a freeze on government spending and shrink government. A better description of the "Herbert hoover" approach to dealing with an economic downturn would be hard to find. McCain was right when he said he doesn't know much about economics. It would be impossible to take a more destructive and wrongheaded approach to handling an economic downturn.Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and al QaedaAnother thing that McCain either does not realize or refuses to acknowledge is just how much to cost of the unnecessary war in Iraq has contributed to causing the current credit crisis. Last March Nobel Prize-winning economist Joesph Stiglitz was describing The Three Trillion Dollar War and explained even then how much the cost of Iraq was contributing to the credit crisis. Stiglitz was correct then, and the problem has clearly gotten much worse. The unneeded Iraq war is not the only cause of the current credit crisis, but it is a major reason why it is as bad as it is and still getting worse. McCain, in his economic ignorance, does not seem to put the credit crisis and the unexpectedly high fiscal costs of the unnecessary Iraq war together. Obama clearly does. Obama recognizes that to deal with the credit crisis will require closing out the Iraq War as quickly as possible.
But Obama clearly places security for America above cost. The threat to America is from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama recognizes the security priority and plans to move the troops to the theater where they are needed. McCain sees the withdrawal of troops from Iraq as an emotional issue. He defines leaving Iraq as somehow "losing." So he will commit troops to Iraq no matter what the real priorities are for American security. McCain is applying fragmented emotional thought rather that coherent priority-based decision processes like Obama is. Russia and the U.S.The very different thought processes Obama and McCain apply to foreign policy were also clearly displayed in this debate as the two discussed how America should deal with Russia. Tristero has an excellent analysis. Obama was focused, rational, cool, consistent and well-informed, focusing on what actions are in America's self interest and how to best achieve what America needs from Russia. The contrast to McCain could not be more stark. John McCain was emotional, even paranoid, unfocused, inconsistent, incoherent and enamored with his own personal experiences. He seemed unaware of what America's foreign policy towards Russia needs to be about. Then he was dismissive of Obama as "naive."How each candidate thinksOf the two debaters it was clearly Obama who was thinking in the real world while McCain mistakes his years of association with people who made major foreign policy decisions for "experience" and "understanding." In a complex, dangerous and threatening world, Obama offers cool, focused rationality and an understanding that decisions are made with American self-interest as the first priority. McCain clearly is not even aware that kind of thinking exists.Lehrer's moderation of the debateGenerally I thought that Jim Leherer did a good job of moderating the debate. But one thing I found jarring was when he repeatedly pressed to get either debater to discuss which of his planned programs would have to be scrapped when the the proposed economic bailout was enacted and $700 billion was scooped up to save Wall Street. Lehrer was off base there - not in initially asking that question and perhaps not in asking a follow up, but he was off base pressing both candidates three times to answer it. It's not a question either candidate should have answered last night. Hillary Clinton would have dismissed it as a "hypothetical." No one really knows what the final deal is going to look like, nor does anyone have a good idea of how much it will really cost. Then no one knows how effective whatever the results will be. Until those things are known, neither candidate should be publicly passing judgment on the bail out or its fall out.
Both candidates should currently have teams discussing exactly how to deal with the fiscal impact of the proposed Paulson bailout. But until Congress decides what the bailout is going to really look like, it would be irresponsible to announce policy decisions based on it. The third time Lehrer asked the question was a waste of debate time.The effects of the debateThe instant polls suggest that the result of the debate was either a tie or that Obama won by. That's unfortunate for McCain. John McCain needed a significant win to counter his recent drop in the general polls. He didn't get what he needed.
I don't think that McCain's Prima Donna actions (requires sitting through 10 or 15 second commercial for access) of "suspending his campaign" and canceling the debate followed by reversing that decision at the last moment helped him a bit. It certainly gave an example of what his campaign manager meant when he told the media that they were going to make the McCain campaign about "character" rather than "issues." I guess the definition of "character" is to have McCain perform frequent media stunts that say "I'm the Great John McCain! Look at Me! Look at Me!"The McCain disaster that is the Sarah Palin decisionIn the aftermath of the debate it is clear that the McCain camp does not dare attempt to let Sarah Palin speak to the media. Her interview with Katie Couric this week was an undiluted disaster. The fact that Palin cannot be allowed to speak to the media emphasizes what a disastrous decision John McCain made when he chose her as his running mate.ConclusionEssentially the debate last night allowed me to better understand the different ways of thinking represented by Obama and McCain. Other than that, since I have followed the campaign rather closely the only thing that is really important is how it impacts the undecided voters. That is going to take a while to determine.
At the moment it looks like it will be a net positive for Obama. That suggests that the McCain camp will be conducting some more panicky and wacky public relations stunts in the near future. That's my best bet, anyway.
Rewritten 11:33 am CDT
Addendum 4:46 pm CDT
For an excellent analysis of last night's debate and its effect on the campaigns, go read James Fallows On strategy and tactics at The Atlantic dot com.
James Fallows concludes: For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it. Go read his post to see what leads him to this conclusion.Labels: 2008 Election, Debate, McCain, Obama, President 2008 |
posted by Richard @ 10:31 AM   |
|
| 2 Comments: |
-
Given that McCain hardly ever looked at Obama while he was talking clearly defines him as one who will be unwilling to unite this country, or the world.
-
Good point, alan.
That seems to be a characteristic of the members of the conservative movement in general. They know what they want at a gut level, and anyone who disagrees or opposes them is their enemy. They deal with opponents and enemies by ignoring them as people and by threatening them.
"Empathy" with an opponent or enemy is seen as weakness. That attitude would cause them to completely discount the effectiveness of diplomacy. It should be no surprise that they don't make successful diplomats.
That attitude is why they are so enamored with the military and police. Their attitude is to ignore anyone who disagrees with them, and if those people impact them in any significant way then segregate them into isolated communities our of sight, throw them in jail (the drug war, the demonstrators in St. Paul or those in New York in 2004 for example) or "bomb them back into the stone age."
That's tribalism modernized to the industrial age.
It is the mindset that I saw McCain displaying last night as he refused to even look at Obama and condescendingly called him "naive." It's also, in my opinion, the basis for McCain's hyper readiness to go to war with any apparent enemy at the drop of a hat, and also the basis for his refusal to pull the troops out of Iraq unless he gets some kind of symbolic surrender like the Japanese signing of the surrender on the Battleship Missouri.
He's ready to fight anyone he considers an enemy no matter what the cost, and he'll happily cheerlead the fighting as the nation falls into ruin around him because he doesn't connect the fighting with the causes of the collapse.
McCain really is offering the third term of Bush 43.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
Name: Richard
The single most important essay that I have published here is Rule of Law vs. Arbitrary Command.
Email Me
e-mail to editor
Intelligent Comments are strongly encouraged
|
| Truth checking sites |
Politifact
|
Snopes
|
| Previous Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Links |
I honor cross-referrals, and hope you do the same.
Links - Showcased
Links - Political
Texas Blogs
Group blogs
|
| Template by |
 |
| Counter by |
|
|
Given that McCain hardly ever looked at Obama while he was talking clearly defines him as one who will be unwilling to unite this country, or the world.