iNow

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC2rDq-WaT0

Obama gave a nice talk on this yesterday entitled "Confronting an Economic Crisis." He showed that he has a good understanding of these matters, and showed IMO good leaderhip. Available in full (~38m) at the following:

Not sure. She used her personal account specifically so we couldn't find out.

Thanks. You know, one thing that's wild about all of this? Obama is not running against Palin, yet that's all we can talk about. McCain has taken a back seat in all of this. Is it because so many of us are convinced that his age and health are an issue that we see Palin as so relevant? We discussed McCain's age and the actuarial tables recently, but we didn't factor in previous medical record into those probabilities. I saw the below video today on that very subject. Take it for what it's worth. I'm not saying I support or renounce it, but it's still interesting:

Someone hacked into Palin's personal email account, and posted it to a site called wikileaks. For the past several weeks, multiple stories have discussed Palin's use of her personal email so as to avoid the need to disclose communications to investigators, especially in context of the investigation of the state trooper she had fired. Well, someone hacked it. Nice. We're to trust her with national secrets? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html "At around midnight last night some members affiliated with the group [anonymous] gained access to governor Palin's email account, 'gov.palin@yahoo.com' and handed over the contents to the government sunshine site Wikileaks.org," said a message on the site. Rick Davis, the campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, issued a statement Wednesday afternoon condemning the incident.

So, you're saying we should have elected Hillary Clinton?

As silly as it sounds, I think your version of "universal" may be too narrow. Even animals exhibit pride and shame. When I toss the toy to my dog and he catches it mid-air, he puffs up his chest, raises his chin and tail, and exhibits great pride. Considering I've seen it in my dog, and other animals do the same, I think the universality of it is not likely to be extinguished by your discussion of slight differences across subgroups or geographical regions in humans.

Change is the method by which candidates tap into the general discontent of the populace, even when said discontent is unconscious. It's vague for good reason, as this is a popularity contest, and you need to appeal to the greatest number. Details make broad appeal quickly fade.

I thought that, too, but that only lists carbohydrates. My guess is that the teacher is looking for something more substantial than "21 grams carb."

The comments below the numbers in your link, Mr Skeptic, debunk much of it. Also, as I understand it, several members of Fannie/Freddie lobbying are helping run McCain's campaign. Like 6 or something.

Their nail trimmers get dull more quickly? Buying gloves is a real PITA? The art projects they did around Thanksgiving always looked odd? We have a harder time telling when they are flipping us off? The base 10 math system seems horribly biased?

In all honesty, much of my approach here is just how deathly scared I am that our insane sheeple of a populace might must elect McCain/Palin, both of whom have been caught in more lies and ridiculous statements than I can remember ever from a politician. I am also someone who is invested in environmentalism and also the fight against creationist nonsense which ignores the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution. Those two concerns of mine skewed me VERY heavily against Palin. I was still teetering somewhat on Obama v. McCain... UNTIL Palin wound up on the Republican ticket. That eliminated all doubt in my mind. Also, Obama does have issues. I won't sit here and try to lie and say he doesn't. But when it comes to measuring those issues against his other qualifications and abilities, against the way he talks about real issues and how much he knows, against how he seems to want to steer this country in a direction with which I agree... then those religious based concerns of mine lose some of their poignance. Palin though doesn't inspire me about her knowledge. She doesn't reflect my version of where I want the country to go. She doesn't show any concern for the things that I care about, and she proudly represents so many of the things which I hate about humanity. Yes, I've picked a horse in this race. I've picked one that came out ahead when I considered all of the various issues in my mind. Yes, I'm now supporting my pick, trying to convince others and also trying to open up dialogue from others such as yourself so I can continue to evaluate whether or not my own choice is appropriate. That doesnt' make me partisan, though. It means I've picked a favorite. The only thing that might be partisan is how strongly I've been impacted by a deep anxiety that (what is now, since coming to my decision) the "other" side might just win and bring my worst fears to reality. I hope you can appreciate the sincerity of my introspection above.

I am provided with two legitimate options in this election. After doing my cost/benefit analysis, I see Obama as the better option. Bullshit, and I'd also like you to support your contention that I am engaged in "partisan worship." You should know me better than that by now, ParanoiA. I am open to a good argument. I change my mind when convinced by the facts, and if you think I'm here engaging in partisan worship then you're a fool (and, I know you're not, so let's just assume you're mistaken about this "partisan worship" label to which you've assigned me). Again, bullshit. There are, however, different levels and methods being used here when it comes to religion. I'm glad you have such respect for my position. I'm clearly a robot who eats the talking points and regurgitates them. Thanks. It's nice being so understood and represented so accurately. I don't worship anything. Please stop. Also, how is the Obama/Biden ticket not more honest, less flawed, and more statesman-like than McCain/Palin? I'd really like to hear your argument on that. This isn't debate class. We don't have to represent each side equally. This a place where intelligent people speak their minds. It just seems that more intelligent people than not are against the McCain/Palin ticket and what it stands for.

Yeah, that is poorly written. I presume, "Since we're no longer going to be giving as much money to oil companies, we can instead use that money for rebates on renewables." However, the hypocrisy is palpable. Drill! We must drill! It's the only way to save your family! Nope. Playing politics is FAR more important than your family.

Also, he said Palin was the most knowledgable person on energy policy in the entire nation. I think he's having issues finding and identifying real talent. A funny quote from Carly Fiorina: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/key_mccain_adviser_admits_pali.php Milhaven: Does Sarah Palin -- John McCain obviously thinks she has the experience to become president of the United States. Do you think she has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett Packard? Fiorina: No, I don't. But you know what, that's not what she's running for. (Laughs) Running a corporation is a different set of things. Exactly, because running HP is FAR harder than running one of the world's last remaining superpowers.

He could have had dust in his eye, or allergies, or a cute receptionist who was bending over in a tight skirt just outside. This is silly.

FWIW... Freud is not known for his discussion of nature/nurture.

plasma is the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_matter

If it makes you feel any better, bascule, others have used the term "unravel" as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091601750.html Too many people on Wall Street have forgotten or disregarded the basic rules of sound finance. In an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand. With their derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage backed securities they tried to make their own rules. But they could only avoid the basic rules of economics for so long. Now, as their schemes unravel in bankruptcies and collapse, it's once again the public who is left to bear the costs. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=794969 Analysts said it was a high-risk strategy that could backfire if financial markets continue to unravel and damage a U. S. economy already teetering on recession. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-lehmans-fall-is-not-all-bad-news-932008.html The markets could unravel further in the coming weeks and there may well be more casualties. http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/gharib/080915_gharib/ The Treasury has drawn the line, said they're not going to help. But you know, at the end of the day, as things do unravel and get measurably worse, the Treasury will use the triple-A credit of the United States of America, and it's still triple-A. And it will continue to be triple-A. Now, I suppose one could try to argue that the Financial sector and the Economy must be treated in silos, discussed independently and assumed to have no impact on one another, but that strikes me as an invalid approach to understanding the pressures we're under.

Believe what you want. It seems pretty obvious to me that she's... how'd you say it? ... stuck in a cloud of god-fog. Let's review: Creationism Iraq is a mission from god Ban well-written books that teach kids how to deal with homosexual parents Crazy church that does far more than talk about culturally based wars, but about (yep) armageddon Wants abstinence only sex education, no real knowledge as proven by science to be shared Golly. Why ever did I come to the idea that her belief in iron age fairy tales might inform her decisions? You're right. NO DIFFERENCE between her and Obama. I do, however, hate the fact that Obama's faith has played such a large role in this election, I'll grant that. However, when it comes to lunacy and discussions of religious belief, I think Palin beats him hands down as off the reality reservation. Fear mongering might just be a good thing in this situation. Anyone who is not petrified by the fact that this woman could be so close to the presidency is either asleep or ignorant.

More on that here: http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2008/09/saradise-lost-chapter-sixten-palins.html In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. ... As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her [mayoral] victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon "during MY lifetime," were obvious. "I can see that, maybe you can't - but it guides me every day." Our next discussion about religion was after she had switched to the less strict Wasilla Bible Church. She was speaking at, I was performing bugle, at a Veterans ceremony between Wasilla and Palmer. At this time, people were beginning to encourage her to run for Governor. Once again, we found ourselves being able to talk privately. I reminded her of the earlier conversation, asking her if her views had changed. She was no longer "necessarily" a young earth creationist, she told me. But she strongly reiterated her belief that "The Lord is coming soon." I was trying to get her to tell me what she felt the signs were, when she had to move on. Creationism (and the fact that she's replaced 3 of 7 on the Education Board with religious friends who sought to remove the word "evolution" from their official science standards), lack of belief in man-made global warming, and silly pastors aside... That's incredibly disturbing. I advise you again to check your assertions for validity. Maybe you're having a difficult time seeing the facts from way up there on your soapbox.

Take Sarah's church problems out of the deck, and I've still got a straight flush of reasons why she should fold her hand.

I agree with your point that incitement of panic is ultimately bad, however, understanding the reality of the situation and discussing it with reason, maturity, and vision is still quite possible. I'm not seeing a lot of those three characteristics from McCain, and that disappoints me. I like(d) McCain, but am really disappointed by him as of late, for many reasons. The economy is in a bad place, but that's no reason to talk to the public like a bunch of incompetent children who can't handle difficult truths.

It is a tough question. The military was sent in so political progress had the opportunity to be made. However, the military objective of less violence was achieved. I grant that, always have. You can see that just looking back at my first few posts. The difficulty comes from the fact that the military cannot be held responsible for political progress, yet that's the goal in question. It depends on how we define success. If we define the purpose of the operation as a reduction of violence, they did it. If we define the purpose of the operation as political progress, they failed. So, it "sort of" worked. I think most of us are in agreement all around, and we're getting too caught up on this "the surge worked" or "the surge didn't work" nonsense. The military clearly did its part. The primary goal of sending in our military and moving the political situation forward, however, was not achieved.

95% of workers with families... not all workers have families, so the percentage changes when that group is included. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/obama_wealthy_taxes/index.htm EDIT: Also, one presumes that the percentage is calculated based on people paying taxes, not based on total population. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.