Disqus - Latest Comments for shane

Re: McCain is 71, “hates bloggers” and Can’t Use a Computer: Someone Explain to Me How He’s a Viable Candidate in 2008

shane — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:09:03 -0000

In all fairness, he said "I hate the bloggers" and in the context it sounds like he was talking about political bloggers that are most likely making fun of him and the GOP. He got a lot of laughs afterwords so it also sounded like a joke.

Re: China is Turning Africa Into a Colony: This is Something We Should Be Talking About

shane — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:20:15 -0000

Very interesting topic; I have only heard bits and pieces before this.

I get your concern, but it seems a little dramatic at first.
Do you have any more info or sources for:
"It’s no secret that most native Chinese see Africans, and blacks in general, as inferior." -That is the first I have heard of it but I don't know any native Chinese or native Africans.
"They’re basically enslaving Africans to work them" -I don't think your implying that employing Africans at low-wages is slavery, but you did qualify it with "basically". Are the Chinese really employing Africans against their will or is this more globalization?

I wouldn't dare imply that I could answer your "Real Question", but I wonder what is really at stake. Most natural resources worth anything over there (Diamonds, gold, trees, ?) is already owned by Western-based international corporations. What kinds of resources has China found besides a huge supply of people and land. I don't see how they will get prosperous over this though.

I imagine option #3 will be taken by the West. Let it happen but monitor for civil rights types of violations like forced child slavery. China may be big and mighty but challenging the West (not just US) could get a lot of powerful nations to ally. And if Western interests are threatened then there will probably be the usual CIA stuff.

Re: “That’s Racist.”

shane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:42:23 -0000

Are you counting down until some one posts this pic?...
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&...>

Re: McCain Calls People Making Making Under 80,000/year, “Stupid”

shane — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:52:14 -0000

It is pretty hard to track down quotes like that, but besides the OSI article you referenced, some comment on a partisan blog is the only other google result: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2725#comment-20...>

And I know rich people can get around places pretty quickly and this isn't definitive counter-proof, but it sounds a little odd to have a private elegant dinner with the elite after a day at the Iowa State Fair eating some "pork chop on a stick".
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/m...>

Point is: You could argue the Trickle-down economics vs fairness tax issue without the unsourced ad hominem attacks.

Re: A New Take on McCain’s VP Pick

shane — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:10:43 -0000

I have been 50/50 on the McCain/Obama race but for some reason I think Palin is a pretty good choice. Not great, but pretty good.

I don't think McCain/Palin's previous relationship (or lack there of) matters too much. They obviously have a lot in common, both well-liked by the Republican base. Being a woman, she will no doubt win some women votes. Being an attractive women will win both men and women votes. A bit superficial but that's the way political races go. Just because she gets votes for being attractive shouldn't take away from her actual credentials (whatever those may be).

To answer some of Brad's points:
I think the ANWR drilling is a huge plus for her because she actually represents Alaska. She would have more knowledge and more vested in the ANWR, so coming out in favor of drilling there means more than a politician in the mainland. Sure, drilling would boost their economy so she would likely benefit that way, but if that is what the state wants...

The same-sex marriage stuff has always seemed dumb to me, but if that's what the Republican base wants, that's what they get. I feel bad for gays right now that the majority of Americans haven't warmed up to the idea by now. Maybe next election.

Global warming IS still debated so there won't be too much against her for saying it is not man-made. Her wikipedia article did say she was still investing money into looking into global warming:
"Palin has followed through on plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisers to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska." so she gets points for that regardless of her personal beliefs.

And the other two issues are too minor for American political debates.

She is not going to win over and die-hard Obama fans, but she may win over a lot of swing voters and border-line Obama supports. Especially women, pro-lifers and centrists.

Re: Gustav

shane — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:00 -0000

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26295161?preferredName=Gustav
MSNBC has an awesome Gustav tracker as well. [Found through kottke.org]

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:02:28 -0000

Derek, a "vocal supporter of Palin’s opposition" is not the same as a "political preference". One is much more extreme.

Daniel, you say "I see smug, religious, non-thinkers who cling to a simple view of the world..." and "overall moral superiority complex" and then say "It’s trashy, pure and simple" while discussing hypocrisy nonetheless. I think you would better understand the issues here if you stop looking at the people and letting your emotions get involved. There ARE completely idiotic Republicans and Neo-cons walking the Earth and on TV (just like that Daily Show clip Carl posted) but I think the reason why you can't understand the Republican party is because THAT is who you choose to listen to. Fox News commentators are political hacks (like Olberman).

Anyway, the Palin issues you point out show that you haven't investigated them beyond dailykos, dailyshow, digg and reddit.
Science vs creationism: McCain says he believes in evolution and Palin says she thinks Creationism should be allowed to be discussed in the classroom along side the evolution-only curriculum. She does NOT believe that the govt should force schools to teach creationism: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3W...>

Banned books: the rumored banned book list is word-for-word the same as this list: http://www.lib.fit.edu/pubs/librarydisplays/ban...
I don't know why she wanted to talk to the librarian about their book policy but if no books were banned, then there is no issue.

The rest of the issues you had were either based on idiotic Republican talking points used for crappy tv shows or based on your general dislike for religious people.

"The world is not simple, and people that try to make it so, and fit it into their own little manufactured reality, are dangerous." ...Fitting and so true.

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:58:16 -0000

Actually I know you are Daniel, that's why I continue to read your blog.

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:08:25 -0000

Derek, I just don't think it is a big deal that Palin wanted her to resign (as long as it did not involve the book-banning issue). If you want me to defend Palin's request, I would say that we don't know how vocal or cooperative the librarian was. Also, the librarian worked for the public library and was therefore a government employee (not sure if it was city or state). Palin did not fire her, she requested her resignation and the librarian declined to resign and everyone moved on. So, my point is that: yes, it seems a little weird like it could have been a personal disliking, but Palin broke no laws and overall it does not seem like a major knock against her as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Re: Sarah Palin Thinks Jesus Will Return in Her Lifetime, and That the Earth is Less Than 7,000 Years Old

shane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:43 -0000

Here is another completely sourceless rumor. But since I can't prove she did NOT say those things, lets assume that she did for a minute...
"And now we see the picture. It’s no wonder she wants to play rough with Iran and Russia—she doesn’t give a fuck what they do. If they get pissed off and start a nuclear war, no worries. Jesus will swoop in and save the believers anyway."
Actually as a God-fearing Christian, I am pretty sure that she would be afraid of God's wrath and I am pretty sure she would be "sent to hell" for doing something like that.

"I like atheists in charge of the nukes—or at least people with a somewhat secular view of the world. It’s important to think that THIS existence is important when wielding the influence and weapons that can bring it to an end." I am not so sure about that. I have no problem with atheists but I don't think your argument holds. Christians believe that what they do in this lifetime determines their future between everlasting joy in heaven or everlasting misery in hell. They believe that what they do here has profound implications. Atheists however believe that there are no consequences. When you die, you die and that is it. If I die by blowing up the world, I will have the same fate as the most generous and loving Pope.

As a side note: check this out... as a former Catholic, I am completely shocked but I guess it is about damn time... http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/08...>

Finally, I am getting pretty sick of the anti-Palin stuff here. Every time you bring up something against her, I look it up and find nothing supporting it besides opinions on blog sites. Factcheck.org I think is one site we can all trust and it shows that she is not as bad as you make her out to be. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming...>

Re: McCain Said These Two Very Different Things — TODAY

shane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:19:43 -0000

Good point D.R.

Not that ABC News in an unbiased news source with a huge Obama advertisement right next to the video, but they also mention that Barack Obama said this: "But I do fault the economic philosophy [McCain] subscribes to, because it's the same philosophy we've had for the last eight years" what economic philosophy is that? Capitalism?? Are we now doubting that Capitalism is what America should use as an economic platform? The particular things Obama wants to change is the minimum wage and social security. How can a (former?) Ron Paul supporter possibly support those things? I get that Obama still supports Capitalism, just with some slightly socialist additions.

But here is what I don't get:
"It’s batshit insane that people don’t get how unstable McCain is. He’s an absolute joke." I just can not figure out where you are coming from. I am a bit apprehensive about voting for McCain but how can you rationally believe that it is "batshit insane" to view McCain as a pretty average politician, like Obama. How can you believe everything that comes out of Digg and Reddit? How can you honestly believe McCain is this sneaky, evil idiot? How does a self-described rational mind start to think in such extremes?

Re: Sarah Palin Thinks Jesus Will Return in Her Lifetime, and That the Earth is Less Than 7,000 Years Old

shane — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:19:35 -0000

Damn it man, you had a great argument! Why ruin it starting with the condescending "really?" and end it all with "seriously, think before you post, grow a thicker skin and stfu. Comment by c'mon now shane" It is as if you knew I wasn't going to buy your argument so you end it with a personal jab to really convince me. It was probably my cue to move on to a new discussion, but I can't help myself.

Pentecostals freak me the hell out even if she supposedly is only associated with Pentecostals. But the church she does go to says that the Bible is "inerrant" - http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679/page/2 and that really blows most of my arguments away right there. I would hope that doesn't mean that she believes the bible is word-for-word true, but I don't know. But back to your argument, "if The Rapture (read: apocalypse) is a good thing, then helping bring it about would not be considered a bad thing". I don't buy that logic. But more importantly, I don't get the point of bringing up the rapture at all. Do you really think it is possible for a VP (or even P) to be so brain-washed religious to believe she is on a mission from god to bring about the end of the world ... AND then actually go on and do it without anyone stopping her? This is just too ridiculous of a scenario. Other than the fact you don't KNOW how religious she is in real life, I can't think of any contradictions to your argument.

Next, good point about my Republican brain. If only my feeble mind could see beyond black and white like Democrats can. I can see how one can infer absolutes from my heaven/consequences argument but it was meant to be generic. Regardless of what afterlife atheists may believe is possible, they inherently do not believe in one in which your future is decided based on a judgment of your actions back on earth. This belief in an afterlife, as silly as seems to both you and me, still forces a hefty a punishment to those christians to not do bad things. I would argue that starting a nuclear war would be a bad thing, but you would argue that a brainwashed Palin may think it is a good thing.

I would like to see a poll of how many christians believe that a holy war is okay. I would also like to see a poll of how many atheists believe that a violent war against religion would be okay. I am sure the results wouldn't be entirely similar, but certainly not that far apart either.

"she is a Creationist, period" I am glad you are so sure, but I am not. If you read that link again you should also note that Palin does not wish creationism to be TAUGHT in school, only that it be allowed to be discussed. As a libertarian, I like that. I think creationism is a dumb theory but I don't think it should be illegal to talk about it, even in a public school. "The Bible is great but the stories are anecdotes, not historical fact." I fully agree.

Back to Palin. Of course, she should be scrutinized. But investigating, as I have also clearly done, is far different than repeating rumors you read from reddit. I am not sick of the scrutiny. I am sick one rumor after another (like the book banning and the he-said-she-saids).

I am just as sick of the similar attacks on right wing sites that still think Obama is a muslim, muslim-lover, socialist, or whatever they come up with next. I much rather prefer arguments like yours if you had only been less of a dick about getting your point across. Just because the internet is anonymous doesn't mean we can't all be civil.

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:16:28 -0000

Carl M,
I like your points even though I am leaning toward McCain.

McCain probably has the advantage in the debates because the bar is set so low for him. As long as he doesn't make any major goofs, Obama will really have to turn his charm to high gear to meet his expectations. Everyone know Obama is the better debater but if McCain at least surprises people then McCain could probably turn people around.

I am torn. I like Obama. I think he is a great inspirational leader and his heart is in the right place. I think he is plenty experienced enough and so is Palin. I worry about having a Democratic president with a Democratic congress. I worry that Obama's policies are going to have excellent short-term results but not long-term results.

To answer your questions: (1) I don't think Bush was a particularly great president, but I don't think he was that bad either. I think he dealt with the big issues as any ordinary president would do. His major gaffes are all with the media. The major foreign policy and economic problems were set in motion long ago. (2) I think after four years after a McCain presidency, very few will think the country is in any better shape which is too bad because I think the policies he would push (deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich, ...) would actually bring about progress AFTER he leaves office.

I wish we had Obama with McCain's policies, or Obama with a Republican congress.

BTW, I think most Clinton supporters that go to McCain are either mistaken about Obama's policies, are worried about his race, or are just bitter.

Re: The Real Problem With McCain

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:28:53 -0000

I bet Obama would agree with McCain actually. Leaders should listen to many options and contemplate on their consequences but at some point need to make a decision. Most of the options are already well thought out by advisers and committees. But a leader needs to make a decision and stand by it through thick and thin. A decision may be a mistake and then you own up to it (as the Bush administration has failed to do many times). It is not a knock against McCain for having that quality and I'm glad that Obama has it as well.

I'm pretty sure you won't buy my next argument but here goes: Sometimes following through with a poor decision (a decision that produces results you didn't expect) is better than scrapping your first plan half-way after you already poured lots of effort into it, to then start a new plan that will inevitably have its own hidden consequences. The people shouldn't expect a perfect presidential decision, they should expect that they made the best decision based on the information they had at the time (information that is not always released to the public).

Re: TED: An Actual Physical Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:39:17 -0000

"If you think that half of America voted Republican because they are blinded in this way [Religion or Ignorance] then my message to you is that you are trapped in this moral matrix."
This isn't to say that there are not people blinded by religion and ignorance that lead them to vote Republican, but how many people could that really be? 50% of America? So what are the reasons that people would vote Republican?
I would say:
- possible distrust of liberal elitism (the attacks on Palin's "trashy" image exemplify this. Obama is above making those attacks but he is still hurt by association to many of his followers that do)
- pro-capitalist, anti-socialist economic views (this is not to accuse that democrats are socialists, only that many democratic economic solutions are usually changes FROM free-market capitalism)
- fear that a liberal president will make the country weaker in the face of terrorism or other threats (obviously not a realistic fear, but a perception problem for democrats)
- because their parents/friends/co-workers are republican (not a very good reason)
- and others that I can't think of....

What to do:
Take those 5 morals in the video, particularly the last three that conservatives favor much higher than liberals and show how Obama still holds those values. Also, I would say that building up Obama works way better than attacking McCain. Attacks make people defensive, not open to new ideas.

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Re: Lying Works: Obama Would Increase Taxes on Just 1% of People, But 53% Think This Includes Them

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:13:00 -0000

Daniel,

I agree that many Republicans still mistakenly think that their income will be taxed more by Obama than McCain. These people think this way because that is how things have been for the last few elections. But are wrong with this election. Only people that make over $115k directly benefit under McCain's tax plan. So then what about the Republican's who look at this chart and say "whatever, doesn't change anything"? Why would they intentionally vote for someone who will tax them more than the other guy? I can't speak for all of them, but I am sure many believe in Milton Friedman's free markets, Reaganomics, or even Ron Paul's libertarianism. And all of those philosophies share the idea that rich people employ poorer people, and to forcibly take their money away to give to the poor discourages them from investing, starting new businesses, taking risks with new technologies (like clean fuels), giving their employees raises, hiring more people or even just keeping their company in the US. An 11% tax increase to those that make over $3 million may seem reasonable at first but think about what that means. Who makes over 3 million dollars? Business owners. What happens when they lose 11% of their income? Do they carry on as usual? No, they adjust their business practices by cutting spending. This means people get pay cuts, get fired, lose medical benefits, or get their jobs outsourced.

So you may say: "Well ok, that is possible, but the money from those taxes are still getting to the middle class in the form of tax cuts or gov't benefits. Or the taxes are going to fund alternative fuel research by the gov't." True, but how much of it? How much does government get to keep out of that? And how well does the govt do at distributing resources compared to the free market?

The thing is, I DO believe that Obama's plan might get us out of this mess (a mess created by regulations and govt intrusion into free markets to begin with) but these policies better be temporary. We may see a quick decrease in poverty and a quick increase in the economy but I am worried about 5, 10, 15 years in the future as people start to think that the free market is broken and it takes socialist programs to make this nation function properly. That is when we see our nation stall like Europe and watch nations like India, China, and Russia become increasingly capitalist and pass us by.

Re: The Real Problem With McCain

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:12:39 -0000

@Carl

Good point. My point is that sometimes leaders need to project the image that they can do no wrong (projecting that image through the media, speeches, books, ...) but behind closed doors they are allowed to hesitate, second guess, flip-flop, and get worried about making important decisions. Most intellectuals see through the false image but also should also realize that there are no perfect decisions.

"Part of building that trust is owning up to mistakes and showing that you learned from them and are concerned by them." That works for some people, but others would rather trust a guy more when they believe that he didn't actually make a mistake. I would rather know that a mistake has been made, but I also realize that a leader coming out to admit it can damage the country's reputation and respect. (I sound like a conservative elitist... is that a new species?)

After thinking more about that TED video from Jonathan Haidt about the psychological differences between cons and libs, I think that McCain was appealing to the cons' respect for authority. I think many conservatives want to believe that McCain isn't wishy washy; that he knows what he wants, makes his decision and stands by it. Haidt's video claims that most liberals question authority, but then again would be less likely to read his book anyways. I do not however think that McCain is actually careless enough to not be concerned about making mistakes.

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:26:03 -0000

@Carl
On another post, you agreed that much information is held from the public. I think the Iraq war is one of those cases where the "pre-emptive war" premise was made to get the public's support, not that it was the real reason. I think most liberals and conspiracy theorists could agree with that too. The difference is that I don't think the real reasons are evil ones. World opinion matters, and when Obama becomes president he gets to be good cop to Bush's bad cop. The bad cop still has an important role to play.

However the current financial crisis is too complicated for me to acknowledge that. I think maybe regulation may fix the problems that other regulations caused. But I will admit to my bias for deregulation.

Re: Overcoming Bias: Excluding the Supernatural

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:37:17 -0000

First, I am an atheist (sometimes agnostic) "evolutionist".

But I take a little issue with this:

This is the difference, for example, between saying that water rolls downhill because it wants to be lower, and setting forth differential equations that claim to describe only motions, not desires. It’s the difference between saying that a tree puts forth leaves because of a tree spirit, versus examining plant biochemistry.

So science explains the how and ignores the why. The why is irrelevant. Water is pulled down the hill by gravitational forces. Why there is gravitational forces pulling the water down is... irrelevant to scientific study. It is not irrelevant to religious study. Maybe a "God" wanted trees to put forth leaves and so wrote plant biochemistry to get it done. The science is still there and christians can still feel happy inside knowing that God did it and God loves them.

Re: One of the Primary Problems With America

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:13:05 -0000

You are more likely to see protests in liberal areas but protests != disagreements. The conservatives in the south more likely agree with Bush and "neo-cons" but if it were a liberal in power, I bet the "south" would be just as disagreeable as the "west" is now.

But with the regional differentiation in acceptance of disagreements... I don't see it. Yes, the south is more polite, but there is no lack of passionate debates: Immigration, English-as-second-language, the other side of the evolution/creationism debates, Mexicans thinking that Texas belongs to Mexico, property rights, gun laws, both Alex Jones' conspiracy movement and Ron Paul's libertarian movement started in.....

Re: This is One of My Favorite Movies of All Time–If Not My Favorite. It’s Six Minutes Long. You Will Love It.

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:04:27 -0000

Reminds me of those Tool music videos.

Also very pessimistic. ...and I love it.

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:50:23 -0000

RE: Regulation

I agree, but I think the sweet spot is way lower than we are at now. Of course, that is mostly a philosophical view that can't really back up.

RE: Preemptive war

I totally don't blame Russia, Iran or even North Korea for their reactions to our foreign affairs. But that doesn't mean we aren't replying to legitimate threats. Like the video Daniel posted of the censorship of the Iran prez... it is complete bs propaganda do to that, but that doesn't mean that Iran ISN'T really interested in developing nuclear weapons (which I would if I were them). And when anybody gets nuclear weapons who we don't have close political ties with, that is a danger to us and our allies.

I don't blame a guy for getting pissed off when I have to cut him off on the highway. But if he starts retaliating by tailing me, I have no qualms about slamming my brakes. The arms-race is a tricky political maneuver.

Re: Sarah Palin Being Blessed Against Witchcraft

shane — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:32:54 -0000

Actually this is pretty ridiculous. I bet she is thinking to herself, "What the f- did I just get myself in to? ... What did he just say? Witchcraft? Oh my god this was a bad idea... Damn it, now I have to go pretend that I am thankful for the prayer just to get the hell out of here."

I just had to find more about this... Here is a piece that defends it as being a typical Kenyan prayer: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/poli... and the rest of articles, of course, just paint her as another other-wordly religious wack-job.

Re: Why Politics Depress Me

shane — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:22:10 -0000

I think the big problem actually is your emotional involvement. No candidate is perfect and that shouldn't be expected. You should also find that all Obama, McCain and Ron Paul are all pretty decent candidates. As soon as you take a side, that immediately gives you your confirmation bias. It is important to have sides fighting each other but neither are ever always right. As much as the sides may hate each other they still need each other.

Politics is a complex game that involves lying, distorting, and flip flopping all to get in to power so that you can finally implement the things they really care about.

Re: Thoughts on the First Debate

shane — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:13:49 -0000

One other thing I’ll mention is the fact that McCain never once looked at Obama. That’s just unprofessional and disrespectful. The motherfucker won his party’s nomination. He’s got a degree from Harvard, but you can’t even address him when the moderator asks you to? This is the kind of thing that makes me severly dislike McCain as a person.

I kept reading this all over digg and reddit.... I don't get it. Obama got called out for exactly the same thing (first 20 minutes or so). The opponent isn't asking the questions, the moderator is. The opponent isn't who their talking to either, the public is. Obama and McCain aren't trying to change each other's minds they are talking directly to the voters looking for votes.

I'll readily admit Obama is a better debater but McCain pulled a good show and made strong points, and you are definitely reaching if that is the best you can pin on him... that he didn't look at Obama with sincereful eyes enough.

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:04 -0000

OK, I'll bite. Obama wouldn't dare touch those videos because they are sensational and/or factually inaccurate. They may not be out of context, but they are tricks.

100 years of war ===
Having soldiers abroad for 100 years is not the same thing as 100 years of war. He gives Japan and South Korea as examples of where we have been there for 50+ years with out war. His point is that America should be prepared to have SOME soldiers still in Iraq after the "war" is over like we do with Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Africa, Kuwait, Cuba, etc. And most Americans "are fine with" us being in those places, why not Iraq?

Attacking Iran ===
No where is it stated in that video that McCain even wants to bomb Iran. It goes from Buchanan giving his fearful opinion straight to Scott Ritter (who I agree with). I know McCain made a stupid joke about "bomb bomb Iran" and he is definitely more inclined than Obama to be strict against Iran's nuclear energy developments but McCain is not promising to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons.

"General Patreaus goes into Baghdad in an unarmed humvee" === This one is weird... but an unarmed humvee is different than an unarmored humvee. I think an "armed" humvee is one with a big turret on top. McCain didn't claim that the General went out without any protection, but he was trying to say that things are safer now, that the General goes out there at all... almost daily.

"I disagree with what the majority of the people want" ===
As if that is always a bad thing. This isn't a mob rule democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us. Argumentum ad populum.

"confederate flag flying over the [South Carolina] capitol" ===
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie... -
I guess you were looking for an instance when McCain admitted to a mistake; here he believed that it was a state issue that they can pick whatever flag they want. Until it became a national outrage, and then he let it come out that he was personally against it and should have spoken up earlier.

HR 3603 Truth Accountability Bill ===
Doesn't exist. No joke. Look it up. You will find a long post on Ron Paul forums that claim it was in 1992. Go to congress.gov and you can find HR 3603 bill from 1992 : "To promote family preservation and the prevention of foster care with emphasis on families where abuse of alcohol or drugs is present, and to improve the quality and delivery of child welfare, foster care, and adoption services." There is no match in any congress database by the name of "Truth Accountability". http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:...>

I hereby appoint myself officially a McCain Apologist. I have little against Obama, and I have little for McCain, but I can't let some of this stuff go by without debunking.

Re: Contemplating Confirmation Bias

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:58:44 -0000

http://www.heritage.org//Press/Commentary/ed092408a.cfm
Here is another interesting bit about Democrats and the current financial crisis. Skip the first few sensational paragraphs to get to the good stuff.

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:19:15 -0000

Carl,

Well shit. Thanks for finding it. I really did spend some time looking for it. Links to search results on the Thomas LOC site won't work but I found this copy.... http://www.nationinstitute.org/pdf/syd5hr3603.pdf
I'd like to learn more about how it got killed if you know how to find it.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:33:36 -0000

Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.

Reminds me of Miss South Carolina Teen USA.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:37:41 -0000

So I'm trying to figure out what she was trying to say. I think maybe it would go like this:
Q: Would there be some sort of ban on exporting new drilled U.S. oil, if that were to take place? (the apparent question according to the CNN transcript)

Since off shore drilled oil are both fungible commodities, it is harder to track and it doesn't matter where the oil goes as prices are based on a world wide market. But Congress may try to put a partial export ban to keep domestic demand satisfied first.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:40:52 -0000

Er, that should be "Since off shore drilled oil is a fungible commodity,..."

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:01:58 -0000

@whoever it was that wrote a long rebuttal to my comment

I don't make the case that the POW stuff was swiftboating. There probably are shreds of truth in those accusations. I don't think it is relevant yet until the real truth really does come out. Nor do I think his POW stuff is off-limits. I didn't even respond to those accusations because they are just accusations. Show me something real.

Yes, McCain generally backs wars. He continues to back the Iraq "war" even when most people think it is/was a horrible idea. He is also probably more likely to initiate a war than Obama would. That obviously doesn't sound good to you, but it does for some people. It makes them feel America is strong and capable of retaliating to threats. He doesn't "talk about leaving" because he doesn't think promises for military withdrawals are political issues. Those plans should be developed by the Generals, which they are. But the "100 years of war" is bogus. I don't get why people think that Military leaders are that incompetent and war-hungry to spend that much money, lose that many lives, and stay there for that long ... without responding to any real threat. But maybe it is just because I have spent a few years in the "Military Industrial Complex".

RE: "General walking the streets unarmed" - Of course I am "spinning it", I am explaining it in a different way than you originally thought of it. This point was my weakest of the list, but I still stand by it. McCain is being misinterpreted by people who don't know military terms. And your mixing two McCain quotes. He said the General goes out in an unarmed humvee and a different quote said that there are safe neighborhoods where one can walk the streets more safely. I don't buy his second quote, but then again I have never walked an Iraqi street. ... And of course a general or presidential candidate can't walk around those streets safely because they are far more valuable of targets that ordinary Iraqis or Americans. I don't accuse you of purposefully spinning your side because I actually assume you are just regurgitating Wolf Blitzer or Keith Olbermann.

RE: confederate flag stuff - So because he took his political party's side on the stupid issue of a state flag, over his own real stance, he can no longer be trusted with political affairs?

Finally, if going against the American public on one issue prevents him going along with the American Public on another issue (riding the populist wave)... then... Good! I sure as hell hope he doesn't do that because I don't trust the American public (religious nutjobs, emo sk8rs, ultrafeminists, gun-happy rednecks, soap opera fanatics, truthers, actual socialists, actual anarchists, and 19yr old "political activists") to guide our affairs. That's why we have a republic and I hope that doesn't change.

PS: If you want to attack McCain, go after Palin's inexperience (without highlighting Obama's own inexperience), go after McCain's misguided stances on economic issues (or his lack of stances on economic issues), question his "Maverick"-ness when he votes +90% along the party line, promote Obama because he can be the good cop/savior that the rest of the world loves which will make America better, or promote Obama for ensuring social equality over economic efficiency. And no, McCain has not earned my vote and I do not think he's worthy of your vote either. I am only here to debate issues as rationally as possible.

PPS: Thanks Uncle B for showing us how one can speak without adding anything to a conversation. Interesting.

Re: A Ron Paul Republican Explains Why Obama is the Best Choice

shane — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:32:56 -0000

Just goes to show how diverse Ron Paul followers can be. We all originally liked Ron Paul, and now all think each other are completely out of touch with reality. We have conspiracy theorists claiming the CFR is going to create an oppressive one world government. We have Daniel claiming that McCain will bringing the END of the country. This is why I am glad that we have an electoral college.

Obama will still end up winning, and people will love him (probably 60% of America and 99% of the world) and America will end up being worse off in 10 years. He won't sell us off as slaves to the NWO, but he will stall are economy further (like Europe). Everyone will have a mediocre paying job with full health benefits (for a while) at the cost of all innovation and productivity going overseas and taking America's wealth with it. I don't think Obama is stupid enough to let it all happen, but the rest of the Democratic congress is. But people will be happy because we avoided a greedy capitalist war monger and a honky-tonk beauty queen.

Re: A Ron Paul Republican Explains Why Obama is the Best Choice

shane — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:03:24 -0000

Dang, I immediately dismissed your argument before even reading the article at hand. Now that I have read it, I think the position is even more absurd. He likes Ron Paul for being anti-establishment and especially anti-Federal-Reserve. You say he is a Ron Paul republican yet I can't find anything that isn't purely along the Progressive party line (besides the Federal Reserve). Here is Ron Paul completely contradicting Punditty's points of support for Ron Paul: http://mises.org/story/2895

So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market." No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn't have come from a dearth of regulations.

Capitalism didn't give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it's not proactive. Congress's job is to get out of the way.

Punditty liked FDR's New Deal?! Social Security works!? I believe this guy supported Ron Paul as many liberals did, but he most definitely is not a Ron Paul Republican.

Re: McCain Takes a Stab at Decency, Punctures Own Lung

shane — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:34:25 -0000

A source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo

First I have to defend the Republican party. They do have complete redneck morons in their party. But so does the Democratic party. So does the Libertarian party. There a completely idiotic "undecided" out there too. It shouldn't have to be said that only a very few (albeit vocal) minority think Obama is muslim/arab/whatever.

I think McCain is preparing his party for an Obama victory, I think it is a safe bet to call the game for Obama (but not a done deal). Obama isn't the devil and neither is McCain. You have to give McCain some credit for trying to convince some of his supporters that the world isn't going to end when/if Obama becomes President. I am sure Obama would do the same.

Now about the actual videos: It doesn't look like McCain himself is being booed. It looks like his supporters are booeing the idea of Obama becoming President. In a separate incident (20 minutes later) McCain pulls the microphone away from a woman who says she can't trust Obama because he is an Arab. McCain then, responsibly, cuts her off and assures his supporters that Obama is not an untrustworthy "Arab". It actually makes much more sense when you watch it on video and see the context. I think he could have done a better job defending Obama by pointing out he is actually a Christian, but why would he want to help Obama more than he really needs to?

If you ever wonder why McCain's campaign ads are all negative, ask yourself if the Obama campaign even needs to pay for their own negative ads. There are enough negative, smearing, FALSE videos by supporters on youtube, digg and reddit for the Obama campaign to just sit back and enjoy from the sidelines. I think McCain supporters send more negative, FALSE emails but they don't get the reach that youtube videos do.

I don't mind Obama, I'd prefer a more libertarian, moderate, conservative President, but it won't be the end of the world. What scares me is the liberal Democratic congress and the millions of democrats who think that Bush and McCain are evil idiots bent on world domination/destruction, and now those democrats will feel vindicated by Obama winning. I fear the day when readers on DailyKos, Digg, Huffington Post become the "winning" party.

Re: Revisiting McCain’s Defense of Obama

shane — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:50:54 -0000

The problem is that, without even thinking about it, he made an association between “Arab”, and “bad.” It’s almost like when the woman said, “He’s an Arab”, McCain heard, “He’s a terrorist”.

McCain doesn't need to equate Arabs to terrorists for this logic to work. McCain likely knew that the woman was implying that being an Arab was a bad thing; after all, why we should she mention it as the reason for not being able to trust Obama? McCain knew where she was going with it as he probably hears it a lot from other ignorant supporters. When they equate Arab (or "brown" people) to "bad" and "terrorists", then his answer fits without proving racism on his part.

Again, “decent family man citizen” is not the opposite of Arab.

Let's say you meet a girl at college and bring her home to meet your mother. Your mother immediately doesn't like her and calls her a whore (or something to that effect). You don't need to prove to your mother that she hasn't had sex form money or that she sleeps around. You tell her what a nice girl she is and all the things your mother wants hear: good family life, doing well in school, etc. That is what I saw McCain do, but then again, I don't look at McCain with the desire or expectation to see racism and other evils. I see just another politician.

Re: Shit Really Might Go Sideways

shane — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:09:00 -0000

I'd like to reply this more later, but I only have time for a couple comments.

First, your fear is rational but not necessarily accurate. I don't know what the future holds but I see the world a little differently. I see our economy (both our internal structures and our international structures) greatly affecting other nations. It may seem selfish to be happy to bring other countries down with us but at least it kind of evens out. We may see new world superpowers arise out of this but that doesn't mean we can be walked all over by other countries, our national defense will still be a huge priority.

Now, considering that some 37 million Americans live in poverty, what do you think that’s going to do to crime when they can’t pay for their basic needs? They’re going to do the same thing you or I would do, i.e. whatever it takes.

If it really gets that bad, there will surely be an increase in crime but also innovation. Companies with poor business practices will go under and be replaced by new technologies and small businesses. Recessions are a natural part of economies and serve to help in many other ways. [ http://www.google.com/search?q=recession+is+a+g... ] But lastly, other things one can do is look for a more steady, stable job, move to a more suburban or rural area and invest in things that are unlikely to lose value (too much): land, natural resources like gold, etc

Re: Obama and “Socialism”

shane — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:59:17 -0000

Read the first 3 paragraphs (at least) and tell me this isn't the direction of the Progressive Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

This is definitely not a recent claim by the McCain campaign; it is the same claim used in every election between Democrats and Republicans. Of course Obama is not A Socialist but his policies are a direction towards socialism. It is a step towards bigger government, more intervention into the economy, redistribution of wealth, and universal social policies.

"The degree of increased taxes being discussed are lower than Reagan levels" Wait. Earlier you said the percentage of taxes in relation to the economy (I assume GDP?) is lower than Reagan levels. Well the economy has grown enormously since the Reagan era. So doesn't that mean his actual tax rates are much higher than Reagan levels?

Re: Obama and “Socialism”

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:06:14 -0000

...Then again, maybe we are just "red-baiting" Daniel.

For the record, I think Daniel's intentions are good, along with Obama and most Democrats. However, I don't think they are practical, realistic or even have the consequences that they expect. Working with government bureaucracies has been one of the most frustrating experiences in the business world for me. The last thing I want is to deal with them more. I don't promote privatization and deregulation because it sounded good in the book I read; I acknowledge its real advantages in the work place that I have directly experienced. Admittedly, privatization and deregulation are not silver bullets, but I think they are generally better solutions than paying a govt bureaucrat to solve the problem for me (helping the poor, giving me health care, taking care of my children, getting me a job, supplementing my education and skills, or even keeping me safe)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_bullet ]

Re: A Visual Comparison of the Obama and McCain Tax Plans

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:06:21 -0000

Admittedly, by the chart you provided, Obama is breaking the typical democrat mold and promising more tax cuts to more people than the republican side. But who is going to spend less? What about universal health care? How much is that going to cost? What about more federal "hand-outs" (welfare, minimum wage)? What about increased regulators for Wall Street? What about the indisputable negative (however "minor" they may be claimed) effects on the economy by cutting corporate gains, CEO salary maximums, regulations, and increased taxes for wealthy investors/shareholders/entrepreneurs? True! McCain may carry out in Iraq longer than Obama. (And they both may get involved in Iran, Pakistan, N Korea, China or Russia.) But it is hard to claim that Obama is going to be hands down, the more fiscally conservative candidate.

Also, semi-related; your latest Twitter:

Indication of a Problem: "A full day's work at the federal minimum wage won't even pay for a single tank of gas."

So at $6.55 for 8 hours of paper pushing, bagging groceries, cleaning plates off a table, answering phones or just laying concrete... would get you about $52 for the day. At $3 a gallon, you would get over 17 gallons of gasoline, a full tank for most cars. Where again is the problem? Is the price of gas the problem or is the pay wage the problem? The oil you are paying for is getting drilled out of the ground on the other side of the world with expensive machinery, packaged/refined and shipped via huge tanker to the US (17 gallons weighing about 100lbs), to be further packages/refined and shipped via trucks to the gas station which then does most of the pumping work for you to fill up your car in only a few minutes. Plus Federal/state/local taxes. Plus safety regulations. As much as people may need gasoline and has become a weekly ritual, gasoline is still a very expensive and complicated enterprise.

The dude making minimum wage is doing work that is likely worth much less than $6 but the company is forced to pay him more and so in return can afford to employ less workers. The guy is working a job that requires very little real talent or skills and is obviously a job that "a monkey can do". The job likely has a very high turn over rate meaning constant retraining of new employees. There is very little to no responsibility or accountability. There would be plenty of time to slack off or at least half-ass it. If the employer fires you, you can always find a new minimum wage job and it would cost the employer to scramble to find a replacement.

So somehow that is a problem? It is unfair? Is the guy entitled to earn more for his limited contribution? Is the guy entitled to cheaper gasoline? Should the government step in raise the minimum wage even higher to help poor Joe sixpack afford more gasoline and ignore (yet again) the further externalities of this price floor.

Re: This Woman is Everything Wrong With America

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:28:56 -0000

What a disgusting woman. I know I come to this blog usually defending the Republican right, but I couldn't even begin to understand where she is coming from. She dislikes Obama for things I respect him for. She likes McCain for none of the things I admire of him. And I cringed every time she did those condescending, holier-than-thou facial expressions. But seriously, she is an idiot. And just because an idiot has idiotic reasons for supporting a candidate, does not take away merit from that actual candidate.

[respective logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy ]

Re: This Woman is Everything Wrong With America

shane — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:09:19 -0000

@Daniel: Oh whups, I didn't mean to imply you had encountered the logical fallacy. And I would also agree that more than enough of the McCain/Palin camp are like this; enough for it be scary and pathetic. Maybe it is just me but I hear Obama talk about his Christian faith often but I can't recall a single instance of McCain talking about his. But I guess Palin talks enough for both of them.

Re: Walking the Walk

shane — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:53:26 -0000

Somehow I knew this was going to make it to your blog. It has been real hot on other blogs as well. It seems like the perfect blow, the last straw to cement the GOP as out of touch.

Or... It could just be the GOP spending a crap load of money in one month to buy their new candidate a new wardrobe and keep her looking good for 2 months before elections. Is it too much money? Yea sure it is. So is everything a campaign spends money on in order to win a campaign. I bet they spend millions of dollars to drive through small towns to shake a few hands and pose in a couple shots for the local newspaper.

I thought I remembered you claiming to focus on issues instead of shock-jock non-issues.

Also, if you cared on how Republicans are defending this:
[ http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE0Zj... ]
[ http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/heckuva-jo... ]

Re: McCain/Palin Hypocrisy

shane — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:35:51 -0000

I have three comments: One) This isn't Palin's money, it is the campaign's money. If they think it is worth the money to use/waste on appearances then it is their prerogative. They wouldn't have spent the money on it if they didn't think it was going to be worth it. They wouldn't think it would be worth it if the American public wasn't as shallow and superficial to care about what she wears but they obviously do. The power of the media.

Two) It isn't the tax payer's money. It is donations. Being fiscally responsible with tax payer's money is essential, but donations are to be used as the campaign sees fit.

Three) This huge bill is representative of one month and only one month. Look at pictures of her before the month that she gets chosen as a VP candidate. That should show you the real Palin who shops at Wal-mart.

Re: If This Gets Out, McCain is Done. Period.

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:16:13 -0000

I was about to tell commenters to ignore the troll (Thomas) but looks like I am too late. Thomas' idiocy is also in no way a smoking gun against McCain either.

John Rohan: Right on.

DW: Was there a point to that rant?

Re: Obama’s Campaign Offers a View of How He Got Here

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:30:23 -0000

I like this video. I think Obama is by far the "better person" but I don't vote on the man, I vote on the policies. And he hasn't convinced me yet.

Dale, where do you get that Obama is out for the power? I can find all kinds of things wrong with him but being disingenuous or power hungry have neither ever been one of them.

Re: Obama’s Latest Ad

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:33:01 -0000

That is what a political ad should look like!

Re: Obama’s 30 Minute Piece

shane — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:27:49 -0000

Transcript: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...>

Re: I Have Major Respect For This Guy

shane — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:44:00 -0000

broken?

Re: McCain/Palin Supporters Dissected

shane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:20:47 -0000

Daniel, it probably doesn't need to be said after the previous commenters, but, as you said, f-ck it. This is probably the worst (quality-wise) post you have written since I started reading your blog almost two years ago. I can look past the hypocrisy pointed out by others. You have every right to feel the way yo do and to say the things you say, but if I find more posts like this, I really wouldn't be able to handle keeping the subscription. I put up with the Pro-Obama stuff because I figured it will calm down in intensity as soon as he ends up winning. But I am not going to read a site where I am particularly insulted.

I don't even disagree with you THAT much. Palin isn't a necessarily great politician/representative of America but she isn't evil either and she obviously has been chosen to represent a good sized section of the population. I was also embarrassed at the boo-ing at McCain's concession, but comparing it to the silence at Obama's reference to McCain is pretty off. They are completely different situations. Could you really tell me with a straight face that if McCain won, Obama fans wouldn't be boo-ing? Hell, I imagine there would be riots, accusations of racism, and incredible (and possibly true) accusations of large-scale voter fraud.

But seriously Daniel, lay off the hate, tone down the emotion, embrace the rational, logical approach that initially attracted me here. I interpret this as built up emotion after a hugely intense election and you had to get it off your chest. I vote for more technical essays about the security world but I am interested in political discussions as well as long as there is some attempt at non-partisanship or at least analysis of facts, not emotions and exaggerations.

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:39:04 -0000

I agree with Scott, mostly.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn't synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google "milton friedman greed".

I don't buy the "road to good intentions ..." bit because I don't blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a "slippery slope". But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: "Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn't seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won't do that." And then eventually Georgia can look around and say "Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea". As long as constitutional rights aren't being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial "disaster". Libertarians say "let the market do its thing and it will work out" and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both "Socialism" and "Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed" is somewhat mitigated.

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:10:50 -0000

There are many flavors of libertarianism, but the one I like is similar to the "night watchman state" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightwatchman<... ] The minimum interference by the federal government as possible while maintaining some X level of peace and protection. Well slavery is unconstitutional, so Prez Obama would have to intervene there. Sharia Law is a pretty complex political framework and incredibly religious but I imagine most of it could fly as long as it didn't involve obvious federal crimes like killing, slavery, rape, or other sexual/bodily harm. There would also have to be some protection of the bill of rights, in particular: freedom of religion. Otherwise, let them wear their burkas and teach Islam.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.
I was tempted to bring up Obama as a possible cultish figure but I don't think it would be relevant, just entertaining... to me. It sounds weird, but in that hypothetical scenario, if no constitutional laws are broken, I'd say go for it. (I think there is some law against seceding from the union)

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.
Who gets to define what is absurd? There are millions of Americans who think that gay marriage is absurd. If the south west really want to ban gay marriage so badly that they get a President (or VP :-) in power, why should they be able to dictate to states a thousand miles away? Why should Californians be able to dictate what flag the citizens of South Carolina want to fly over their capital? If the people of these regions are that fundamentally different, why try to make them the same? Why institute a single rule set to govern over everyone? It would be just as ridiculous as the CTO of Fortune 500 company X deciding that all 5000 employees nationwide must only use Internet Explorer 7.0 and all security updates must be routed through the company's centralized IT team before installation.

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:14:21 -0000

On second thought my final example may not be extreme enough, but I think my point was clear.

Re: The Real Palin Comes Out [From Fox]

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:58:11 -0000

Yea this seems like finger-pointing/scapegoating to me too. Or a gimmick for Fox News to try to seem non-partisan after the heavily biased election cycle. Either way, I almost refuse to believe Gov Palin is that stupid.

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:24:29 -0000

Holy crap, did you even read that "analysis". During the election, the GOP was getting nailed for getting the definition of socialism wrong. What about that post?

We're ALL "socialists" under their definition [...] It's just that some of us with a moral sense want to put that "socialism" to work for all of us, while others are content to advocate only for "socialism" for our rich, white, and corporate citizens.

The definition of socialism is governmental action to create an or more) egalitarian society by means redistribution. That means socialism spreads wealth/resources/anything to ALL people. The accusation of governmental intervention to benefit rich white corporate citizens definitely rings true, but its not called socialism, its called corporatism. Corporatism is awful as well but its not the free market either, it is corporate bail outs and subsidies.

But that should all be besides the point... in this election Non-democrats were accused of red-baiting (accusing democrats of being socialists) and they were mocked for it as being ridiculous accusations. And now we have what looks like a defense of socialism. I basically interpret it as, "We aren't socialists, but if we were, it would be great, even this conservative thinks so."

Middle class and especially lower class Americans will benefit from socialism, that can't really be argued. They would get enormous checks in the mail, excellent job offers, excellent roads, health care, ... nearly everything. FOR A SHORT WHILE. As proven in any economics 101 class, there goes the economic efficiency, and there goes the economy, and now we are poor. We will all be equal, yes, equally poor. But at least its "fair".

Re: The Sad Irony of Who Voted For Prop 8

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:31:23 -0000

I think anybody should get married or have a civil union, I really do. But current laws make marriage and incentive. You get tax breaks for being married "heterosexually" because that is what the government wants to encourage. If anybody can get married, then everybody gets the "incentive". So then it isn't an incentive, it's a handout. Change the marriage laws.

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:21:27 -0000

@Daniel - I didn't miss the quote. I disregarded it. Of course people want those things. Why wouldn't they? And in a democracy, they can vote the right people in and get what they want. That doesn't mean it is a good thing. It is why libertarian-leaning economists and Reagan-type Republicans jump in and say "Wait. We want versions of these things too, but the way to get them is not by government mandate. It's by letting the market do its job." Except universal health-care or universal anything. The price to go from 90% to 95% to 99% to 100% skyrockets. I think most republicans are fine with a slightly progressive tax. Obama's plan is not slightly progressive.

@Maxo - McCain (as if it wasn't already obvious) sold out. I don't necessarily blame him, he went after the moderate vote and undecided democrats. His policies had to move left with him. The vast majority of the people want something, anything to intervene and fix the economy and he had to offer some interventions that would usually go against a far-right party line.

@Jonathon - I totally agree. DailyKos is line with celebrity gossip columns. No fact checking, no analysis, just rumors and word-of-mouths. But I agree that this story should be judged as it stands alone. And still.... it's trash. Just because he posts on a conservative blog doesn't make him a conservative. It's pretty obvious by his views that he isn't very right-wing at all.

@Jason - I agree, no one isn't pushing pure Socialism. But they are pushing a form of socialism. We are able to call our current economy a capitalist economy even though it is most definitely not Capitalism either. The definition you gave did not say anything about the "micro level" either. You did. The democratic party does promote "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state [...] ownership [...], and the creation of [a more] egalitarian society." (A little different than your definition, but pretty close)

Re: A Crazy Idea Regarding the Obama Administration and Security

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:32:23 -0000

@Daniel, I have been reading Lessig and Schneier for years as well. I like them both but Lessig doesn't get in to security at all, more legality of technologies. Still, he would be a great adviser to Obama if he isn't already. He may never be an official adviser, but I'm sure he'd be up there.

@Rob, was that sarcasm? Lessig: Creative Commons? Yeah that went no where /s. Do know how many books Schneier has written on cryptography? Schneier (and company) writes his own crypto algorithms that are used by other people. I know only little about Ranum but Bejitch has had a huge influence on the security as well.

Though I have always been critical of Obama, I do recognize the potential for a leader to finally understand technology and the issues/threats with it. I imagine that the technology world will improve greatly under his watch.

Re: Inspiring

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:35:02 -0000

I hate to be Debbie-Downer, but if this was a McCain sign, no one would question me when I say, "Staged photo op!"

Re: Why Bit.ly is my Favorite URL Shorterner

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:48:18 -0000

So, I get why you would want to use bit.ly and tinyurl for twitter, but isn't it a bit odd considering your knowledge of XSS?

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:53:16 -0000

I am interested to hear what Obama supporters think about his future Chief of Staff's "New contract for America" : http://volokh.com/posts/1225908208.shtml

Re: Best Prop 8 Comment Ever

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:05:37 -0000

Actually, I am pretty sure it was only in Europe and America and in the last few hundred years that the majority of slaves were of African descent. In "biblical times" slaves were Jewish, Indians, and even just atheists.

It comes up in every thread about Christianity, but most Christians do not take the word of the (entire) bible to literal. The Christians (white or black or brown) who are against Same-sex marriage, don't do it because the bible tells them to. They do it because they believe it degrades the sanctity of their own religious marriages. That means it comes from themselves, not strictly their religion.

Also, this is only ever brought up as a defense for Obama, but isn't he a Christian? Someone should ask him if he thinks the bible is literal or not and watch him dodge the question.

Okay, I can think of one other thing: Marriage is a privilege/incentive, not a right which makes it different than the current laws against slavery. And nobody is suggesting homosexuals be slaves.

Re: Obama Doesn’t Have Long

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:57:41 -0000

Not only does he not have long, but look at what is expected of him. The next president it going to be expected to fix the economy. The recession needs to be stopped and maybe turned around. Poor people need to be raised up a notch. He can't be caught up in the usual old-white-man corruptions. He is expected to fix the Iraq situation, and at least make progress in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, for him he is also setting a precedent for future "minority" candidates and if he doesn't live up to the expectations, future minorities and women will have a much harder time being taken seriously. I would love for Obama to come in and shake up Washington, revamp processes from the ground up. But how practical is that?

Fortunately for him he has the congress with so they can pass some pretty powerful legislation. That's good for him, but bad for libertarians.

I don't think Sarah Palin is going to be making an appearance beyond maybe a role as a congresswoman. I don't even think the McCain campaign thought they had a serious shot this time around and got someone who would at least excite the GOP to vote in conservative congressmen.

Re: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote The Way They Do

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:14:46 -0000

So I have been reading their blog for a while now too: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/

They really have excellent statistics. So does http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/

Re: The Sad Irony of Who Voted For Prop 8

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:30:27 -0000

@Jamie, That is an interesting thought I hadn't heard before. Blacks (and now more recently Mormons) are being blamed for Prop 8 passing. I suppose the Mormon church really did fund a big campaign for it, but they do have the right to do so.

But what I would like to hear is why you (or anybody) defines Marriage as a right. And I mean the type of gov't recognized marriage. Same sex couples can live together, share funds, have a big ceremony. Why (besides tax status) do they need to be recognized by the State?

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:30:17 -0000

You mentioned that you don't think this is socialism or at least socialism is the wrong word for it. Maybe you are right. I feel like I should stop using the word socialism because it is an accusation with too much emotion attached. Calling some one a socialist just begs the accused to refute the name, not the policy that provoked the name calling. But I suppose that is the problem with any name calling.

I like the idea of new President with powerful reforming ideas, remove old outdated laws and enact new leaner ones that better represent the 21st century. And I think Obama and Rahm and their congress majority are definitely going to have the muscle to do that. And maybe America does need a quick injection of progressive policies in order to revitalize it. I think Rahm is going to be the puppet master for this presidency as Karl Rove is for the current. Democrats will love him and Republicans and Libertarians will hate him.

Universal Citizen Service - Encouraging these young people to participate in their community is great but mandates are way too far. I suppose it is better than a military draft where lives are risked but the philosophy is still questionable. The federal government should have the power to force all 18-25 year olds (legal adults) to ... do... anything is something that totalitarian governments do, not free countries. "A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs." I really can not wait for more bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives and how we can sacrifice more for them. No chance of corruption here.

Universal College Access - Great, lets make our colleges as uniform, drab, and unproductive as public schools. I am all for giving poor but ambitious people a chance to get a degree when they couldn't previously afford it. I am all for public schools to become more specialized like colleges where your education helps you to dive into a field you are passionate about. But if everyone had a college degree (especially if everyone had the same college degree) then how horribly easy, meaningless and useless will it be? Why do janitors, construction workers need college degrees? Wouldn't this be a complete waste of time if they didn't really want one? In the IT world I know, there are plenty of intelligent workers (young and old) without degrees that accomplish great things and are promoted based on productivity and merit. Did they need degrees to be successful? How many successful entrepreneurs make the news without degrees? What's wrong with scholarships, grants, and student loans? Or even a quick 4 years in the military to set you up for nearly a lifetime of free schooling?

Universal Retirement Savings - Better than Social Security I guess. But horrible for small businesses. If I want to work for neighbor's lawn mowing business, he has to offer me a 401k plan? Okay, but I am pretty sure that money is coming straight out of my own pay check. Hopefully I was making well over minimum wage, otherwise my neighbor may not be able to afford to hire me at all.

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . . Excellent, can't argue with those.

I would like to see how they are able to innovate this alternative energy economy where the market place hasn't been able to. I foresee tons of subsidies for corn farmers soon.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren.

So, I don't get this. I don't see the epidemic. I acknowledge that it is bad when stupid people reproduce like crazy and smart people have one or two kids if any. But it seems like the exact situation you imply (young pregnant mother, father who skips out, child ends up raised by the grandparents) just produced the next President of the United States. He is obviously only one case, but I don't think broken marriages and young couples are the epidemic in themselves. Stupid parents, abusive fathers, shallow mothers are to blame.

But all of the above pretty much misses the point. This is the crux of your argument, I think:

This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The [policiy] I’m advocating [...] is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy. [...] This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. [...] Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

One of the few places I dare to break from my libertarian POV is education. Because I agree, everybody benefits when everybody is smarter. But "public school" type thinking is NOT working. Use vouchers, home schooling, private schools, technical schools and a copyright/patent policy where knowledge is more free so kids can tinker and learn.

If you want real improvement in society don't look for President to do it for you. He may inspire you, but it is you that changes society. It is you that makes your life better. You want a political agenda that creates personal responsibility, progressive politics is not the answer. Again, I like Obama the man, and I do believe that he may inspire America and the world to do great things, but don't have so much faith in Rahm and the Progressive PACs, I beg you as an atheist to have has just as much faith in politicians as you do in God.

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:49:44 -0000

I have faith in people I know, and I keep a critical eye on people I don't know. My distrust for politicians is different, I guess. I would trust them with my car, my baby girl, and usually my life. I know they (Obama's forthcoming administration, Progressive PACs) have good intentions; I believe they are doing what all politicians are paid to do: look at historical data, listen to the people's wishes, listen to the advisers and write the best possible legislation to fix the problem. That sounds pretty flawless. But I haven't been convinced there is a problem. I don't see the crisis. I think the best insult to a libertarian is to accuse them of burying their head in ground like an ostrich as the world crumbles around them. We advocate letting the market do its thing like some invisible hand with spontaneous order creating powers. I acknowledge that the economy is taking a downward turn but economics tell me that is normal. People will lose jobs and they will find new ones. People lose their homes and they will find new ones. Barring a great plague or nuclear attack, I feel pretty comfortable. As long as the market remains mostly free, economics tells me it will find its own equilibrium. A politician didn't tell me that, charts, studies and historical analysis told me that.

Getting back to the point, though; I think politicians are only their to make us feel better. Don't worry we have the solution, it will work shortly. Like religious figures, we give them money and power and in return they give us hope that our problems will go away. And maybe people really do need those delusions, but every time some ambitious politician comes around with a grand plan to fix our country I just sigh. These plans aren't going to steal all of our money or bankrupt our economy. They are going to let worriers stop worrying and get back to work where the real efforts are being made to improve society.

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:08:51 -0000

I forgot about my one of main points: Just to underscore the futility of intervention in economics, what is Obama's very first push to fix the economy? How is the democratic party setting the course to fix our fiscal crisis? A $100 billion dollar economic stimulus package program. Giving us our own money back evenly distributed (with a little bit off the top to cover some expenses). Thanks guys, I was wondering where my money went, how grateful I am that you plan on returning it! And we know how well it will kick-start the economy as the populace continues to spend it paying off loans and buying crap made in foreign countries right before Christmas. All things that have shown to be completely useless in creating new jobs and putting more money into the American economy. But people will be happy and politicians will be satisfied.

(Oh, and the other push is to bail out US automakers. Because God forbid companies that make crappy, un-innovative cars should have to be forced to drastically rethink their business plans. Who knew that all of that money spent on marketing instead of R&D and efficiency wouldn't pay off. Of course, it's not like they could have made too many changes, the Auto unions prevent them from shutting down plants, cutting projects, taking risks and any other things companies need to do to remain flexible in a volatile economy.)

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:44:49 -0000

Ok, one more and I swear I'll quit. I mentioned new plans for education besides more money for public schools. What about this? If you didn't know who wrote it, wouldn't you think it would be pretty good idea? http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/cont... (Oh, and skip the first two meaningless paragraphs.)

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:49:16 -0000

I agree, and I enjoyed the conversation too. I just want to make one comment on the following at the risk of looking like I just want to get the last word in...

"What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country."

I am not against "redistribution of wealth". I am against forced redistribution of wealth. And not because it is "unfair" or "unconstitutional". But because of the detrimental effects and hidden consequences to the economy. I am all for charities (even federal charities like the Combined Federal Campaign) and churches that find a worthy cause and put together a program of volunteers to raise funds. It is libertarian when some other organization besides the federal gov doing it.

Re: McCain is 71, “hates bloggers” and Can’t Use a Computer: Someone Explain to Me How He’s a Viable Candidate in 2008

shane — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:09:03 -0000

Re: China is Turning Africa Into a Colony: This is Something We Should Be Talking About

shane — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:20:15 -0000

Very interesting topic; I have only heard bits and pieces before this.

Re: McCain Calls People Making Making Under 80,000/year, “Stupid”

shane — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:52:14 -0000

Point is: You could argue the Trickle-down economics vs fairness tax issue without the unsourced ad hominem attacks.

Re: A New Take on McCain’s VP Pick

shane — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:10:43 -0000

I have been 50/50 on the McCain/Obama race but for some reason I think Palin is a pretty good choice. Not great, but pretty good.

And the other two issues are too minor for American political debates.

She is not going to win over and die-hard Obama fans, but she may win over a lot of swing voters and border-line Obama supports. Especially women, pro-lifers and centrists.

Re: Gustav

shane — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:00 -0000

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26295161?preferredName=Gustav
MSNBC has an awesome Gustav tracker as well. [Found through kottke.org]

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:02:28 -0000

Derek, a "vocal supporter of Palin’s opposition" is not the same as a "political preference". One is much more extreme.

The rest of the issues you had were either based on idiotic Republican talking points used for crappy tv shows or based on your general dislike for religious people.

"The world is not simple, and people that try to make it so, and fit it into their own little manufactured reality, are dangerous." ...Fitting and so true.

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:58:16 -0000

Actually I know you are Daniel, that's why I continue to read your blog.

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

shane — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:08:25 -0000

Re: Sarah Palin Thinks Jesus Will Return in Her Lifetime, and That the Earth is Less Than 7,000 Years Old

shane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:43 -0000

As a side note: check this out... as a former Catholic, I am completely shocked but I guess it is about damn time... http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/08...>

Re: McCain Said These Two Very Different Things — TODAY

shane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:19:43 -0000

Good point D.R.

Re: Sarah Palin Thinks Jesus Will Return in Her Lifetime, and That the Earth is Less Than 7,000 Years Old

shane — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:19:35 -0000

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:16:28 -0000

Carl M,
I like your points even though I am leaning toward McCain.

I wish we had Obama with McCain's policies, or Obama with a Republican congress.

BTW, I think most Clinton supporters that go to McCain are either mistaken about Obama's policies, are worried about his race, or are just bitter.

Re: The Real Problem With McCain

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:28:53 -0000

Re: TED: An Actual Physical Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:39:17 -0000

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Re: Lying Works: Obama Would Increase Taxes on Just 1% of People, But 53% Think This Includes Them

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:13:00 -0000

Daniel,

Re: The Real Problem With McCain

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:12:39 -0000

@Carl

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:26:03 -0000

Re: Overcoming Bias: Excluding the Supernatural

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:37:17 -0000

First, I am an atheist (sometimes agnostic) "evolutionist".

But I take a little issue with this:

This is the difference, for example, between saying that water rolls downhill because it wants to be lower, and setting forth differential equations that claim to describe only motions, not desires. It’s the difference between saying that a tree puts forth leaves because of a tree spirit, versus examining plant biochemistry.

Re: One of the Primary Problems With America

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:13:05 -0000

Re: This is One of My Favorite Movies of All Time–If Not My Favorite. It’s Six Minutes Long. You Will Love It.

shane — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:04:27 -0000

Reminds me of those Tool music videos.

Also very pessimistic. ...and I love it.

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

shane — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:50:23 -0000

RE: Regulation

I agree, but I think the sweet spot is way lower than we are at now. Of course, that is mostly a philosophical view that can't really back up.

RE: Preemptive war

Re: Sarah Palin Being Blessed Against Witchcraft

shane — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:32:54 -0000

Re: Why Politics Depress Me

shane — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:22:10 -0000

Politics is a complex game that involves lying, distorting, and flip flopping all to get in to power so that you can finally implement the things they really care about.

Re: Thoughts on the First Debate

shane — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:13:49 -0000

One other thing I’ll mention is the fact that McCain never once looked at Obama. That’s just unprofessional and disrespectful. The motherfucker won his party’s nomination. He’s got a degree from Harvard, but you can’t even address him when the moderator asks you to? This is the kind of thing that makes me severly dislike McCain as a person.

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:04 -0000

OK, I'll bite. Obama wouldn't dare touch those videos because they are sensational and/or factually inaccurate. They may not be out of context, but they are tricks.

"I disagree with what the majority of the people want" ===
As if that is always a bad thing. This isn't a mob rule democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us. Argumentum ad populum.

I hereby appoint myself officially a McCain Apologist. I have little against Obama, and I have little for McCain, but I can't let some of this stuff go by without debunking.

Re: Contemplating Confirmation Bias

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:58:44 -0000

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:19:15 -0000

Carl,

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:33:36 -0000

Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.

Reminds me of Miss South Carolina Teen USA.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:37:41 -0000

Since off shore drilled oil are both fungible commodities, it is harder to track and it doesn't matter where the oil goes as prices are based on a world wide market. But Congress may try to put a partial export ban to keep domestic demand satisfied first.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:40:52 -0000

Er, that should be "Since off shore drilled oil is a fungible commodity,..."

Re: The Two McCain Videos That Obama’s Campaign Should Be Using

shane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:01:58 -0000

@whoever it was that wrote a long rebuttal to my comment

RE: confederate flag stuff - So because he took his political party's side on the stupid issue of a state flag, over his own real stance, he can no longer be trusted with political affairs?

PPS: Thanks Uncle B for showing us how one can speak without adding anything to a conversation. Interesting.

Re: A Ron Paul Republican Explains Why Obama is the Best Choice

shane — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:32:56 -0000

Re: A Ron Paul Republican Explains Why Obama is the Best Choice

shane — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:03:24 -0000

So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market." No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn't have come from a dearth of regulations.

Capitalism didn't give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it's not proactive. Congress's job is to get out of the way.

Punditty liked FDR's New Deal?! Social Security works!? I believe this guy supported Ron Paul as many liberals did, but he most definitely is not a Ron Paul Republican.

Re: McCain Takes a Stab at Decency, Punctures Own Lung

shane — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:34:25 -0000

A source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo

Re: Revisiting McCain’s Defense of Obama

shane — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:50:54 -0000

The problem is that, without even thinking about it, he made an association between “Arab”, and “bad.” It’s almost like when the woman said, “He’s an Arab”, McCain heard, “He’s a terrorist”.

Again, “decent family man citizen” is not the opposite of Arab.

Re: Shit Really Might Go Sideways

shane — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:09:00 -0000

I'd like to reply this more later, but I only have time for a couple comments.

Now, considering that some 37 million Americans live in poverty, what do you think that’s going to do to crime when they can’t pay for their basic needs? They’re going to do the same thing you or I would do, i.e. whatever it takes.

Re: Obama and “Socialism”

shane — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:59:17 -0000

Read the first 3 paragraphs (at least) and tell me this isn't the direction of the Progressive Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Re: Obama and “Socialism”

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:06:14 -0000

...Then again, maybe we are just "red-baiting" Daniel.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_bullet ]

Re: A Visual Comparison of the Obama and McCain Tax Plans

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:06:21 -0000

Also, semi-related; your latest Twitter:

Indication of a Problem: "A full day's work at the federal minimum wage won't even pay for a single tank of gas."

Re: This Woman is Everything Wrong With America

shane — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:28:56 -0000

[respective logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy ]

Re: This Woman is Everything Wrong With America

shane — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:09:19 -0000

Re: Walking the Walk

shane — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:53:26 -0000

Somehow I knew this was going to make it to your blog. It has been real hot on other blogs as well. It seems like the perfect blow, the last straw to cement the GOP as out of touch.

I thought I remembered you claiming to focus on issues instead of shock-jock non-issues.

Also, if you cared on how Republicans are defending this:
[ http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE0Zj... ]
[ http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/heckuva-jo... ]

Re: McCain/Palin Hypocrisy

shane — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:35:51 -0000

Two) It isn't the tax payer's money. It is donations. Being fiscally responsible with tax payer's money is essential, but donations are to be used as the campaign sees fit.

Re: If This Gets Out, McCain is Done. Period.

shane — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:36:21 -0000

@Cak, the townhall was from the Oct 12, 2000, right after he lost the GOP nomination to W.

@Daniel. In response to the post, you mention McCain's caveat with the "out of proportion" bit but for some reason discount its importance. The chart you posted earlier this week comparing their tax plans was indisputable, but it also showed that Obama's plan was absolutely "out of proportion". The tiny top two tiers would be taxed far more than the rest, not just a little bit. You may, then, decide to point out the the rich are getting more taxes cut than the rest, but compare these decreases to the current tax rates. The link in my "comment name" (below) has a pretty good break down. The richer will still pay more taxes (by amount and by percent) but it is considerably more "proportionate" than Obama's plan.

But I wonder why you think this is such a heavy hitting video. People who believe that the wealth should be "spread" are already voting for Obama. You aren't going to convince anyone that leans toward "free-markets". I would be surprised if any one on the right is remotely phased by this. So you must be trying to attract undecideds. What undecided doesn't already know how clear McCain and Obama are on their current tax proposals? This goes down as another distraction from real issues.

http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008taxrates.htm

Re: If This Gets Out, McCain is Done. Period.

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:16:13 -0000

I was about to tell commenters to ignore the troll (Thomas) but looks like I am too late. Thomas' idiocy is also in no way a smoking gun against McCain either.

John Rohan: Right on.

DW: Was there a point to that rant?

Re: Obama’s Campaign Offers a View of How He Got Here

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:30:23 -0000

I like this video. I think Obama is by far the "better person" but I don't vote on the man, I vote on the policies. And he hasn't convinced me yet.

Dale, where do you get that Obama is out for the power? I can find all kinds of things wrong with him but being disingenuous or power hungry have neither ever been one of them.

Re: Obama’s Latest Ad

shane — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:33:01 -0000

That is what a political ad should look like!

Re: Obama’s 30 Minute Piece

shane — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:27:49 -0000

Transcript: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...>

Re: I Have Major Respect For This Guy

shane — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:44:00 -0000

broken?

Re: McCain/Palin Supporters Dissected

shane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:20:47 -0000

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:39:04 -0000

I agree with Scott, mostly.

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:10:50 -0000

Re: This Election Has Made Me More Liberal

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:14:21 -0000

On second thought my final example may not be extreme enough, but I think my point was clear.

Re: The Real Palin Comes Out [From Fox]

shane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:58:11 -0000

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:24:29 -0000

Holy crap, did you even read that "analysis". During the election, the GOP was getting nailed for getting the definition of socialism wrong. What about that post?

We're ALL "socialists" under their definition [...] It's just that some of us with a moral sense want to put that "socialism" to work for all of us, while others are content to advocate only for "socialism" for our rich, white, and corporate citizens.

Re: The Sad Irony of Who Voted For Prop 8

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:31:23 -0000

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:21:27 -0000

Re: A Crazy Idea Regarding the Obama Administration and Security

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:32:23 -0000

Re: Inspiring

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:35:02 -0000

I hate to be Debbie-Downer, but if this was a McCain sign, no one would question me when I say, "Staged photo op!"

Re: Why Bit.ly is my Favorite URL Shorterner

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:48:18 -0000

So, I get why you would want to use bit.ly and tinyurl for twitter, but isn't it a bit odd considering your knowledge of XSS?

Re: A Brilliant Analysis of the GOP’s “Socialism” Cry

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:53:16 -0000

I am interested to hear what Obama supporters think about his future Chief of Staff's "New contract for America" : http://volokh.com/posts/1225908208.shtml

Re: Best Prop 8 Comment Ever

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:05:37 -0000

Also, this is only ever brought up as a defense for Obama, but isn't he a Christian? Someone should ask him if he thinks the bible is literal or not and watch him dodge the question.

Okay, I can think of one other thing: Marriage is a privilege/incentive, not a right which makes it different than the current laws against slavery. And nobody is suggesting homosexuals be slaves.

Re: Obama Doesn’t Have Long

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:57:41 -0000

Fortunately for him he has the congress with so they can pass some pretty powerful legislation. That's good for him, but bad for libertarians.

Re: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote The Way They Do

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:14:46 -0000

So I have been reading their blog for a while now too: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/

They really have excellent statistics. So does http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/

Re: The Sad Irony of Who Voted For Prop 8

shane — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:30:27 -0000

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:30:17 -0000

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . . Excellent, can't argue with those.

I would like to see how they are able to innovate this alternative energy economy where the market place hasn't been able to. I foresee tons of subsidies for corn farmers soon.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren.

But all of the above pretty much misses the point. This is the crux of your argument, I think:

This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The [policiy] I’m advocating [...] is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy. [...] This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. [...] Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:49:44 -0000

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:08:51 -0000

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:44:49 -0000

Re: Obama’s New Plan?

shane — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:49:16 -0000

I agree, and I enjoyed the conversation too. I just want to make one comment on the following at the risk of looking like I just want to get the last word in...

"What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country."