Open Thread Second Debate
Ariana Huffington thinks that debates are obsolete because they are not a fair test of how Presidents really handle issues.
When is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he’s going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? Information is good — indeed, very few crises in our history have come about because a president wanted to consider too much outside information.
Why not let the President bring his teleprompter, Blackberry, Iphone and Air Force One? After all he would have them in an actual decision making situation. Here’s one format Ariana likes. It is the modern version of the Chinese Room.
Bashir doesn’t get specific, but Friedersdorf does. He calls for “text-based debates,” in which opposing candidates would be sat in different rooms, given computers and engage in something like an IM chat. “I think text would easily prove more substantive than broadcast,” he writes. “There’d be a nice transcript at the end that voters could consult. The political press wouldn’t waste time talking about body language, facial expressions, dress, or other nonsense that is covered as if it’s important because it’s covered as if it’s important.”
John Searle’s famous AI scenario, the Chinese Room experiment recreates Friedersdorf’s experiment almost exactly. “Searle’s thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese.”
Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program’s instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he would be able to do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the role the computer plays in the first case and the role he plays in the latter. Each is simply following a program, step-by-step, which simulates intelligent behavior. And yet, Searle points out, “I don’t speak a word of Chinese.” Since he does not understand Chinese, Searle argues, we must infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.
In the Friedersdorf case, we are asked to believe that because there is something which comes out of the sealed room that pretends to IM like a President then it is in fact a President. Huffington is willing to consider it a fair test. Maybe it is.
But maybe debate is a throwback to that old institution, trial by combat, where “God” is called upon to settle things. In that situation each of the opponents get on their respective steeds and whack at each other with flails, maces and battle-axes. Man to man. Mano a mano.
Maybe the whole reason for the debate is that voters want to see the opponents go at it grunting and flinching in the ring with as few props and appliances as possible. They want to see the man, not the machine. As it is, people are complaining that Obama has brought his own moderator.
The moment, when according to Obama’s supporters, the President won the second debate. Crowley corrects Romney and tells him that Obama considered Benghazi an act of terror from the very beginning. “D Wasserman Schultz @DWStweets Libya question left #RomneyExposed as a candidate who is not in command of the facts—or foreign policy.”
Belmont Commenters
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
I am worried about Candy Crowley
I fear she is going rogue–and her target will not be Barack Obama.
It’s almost cute the way Fredersdork apes educated men.
Anyone ever read Piers Anthony’s first books, collected as Battle Circle, a post-apocalyptic America in which trial by battle with primitive weapons in the circle, is common practice? Obambus could use a golf club, and Romney I dunno, maybe a whip. Would probably be more informative than tonight’s debate will be. And that’s even if Candy Crowley keeps her clothes on.
I can easily see today’s debate getting entirely out of hand.
If we can’t go full Lincoln-Douglas, then at least the candidates should get the questions in advance, and maybe even the opponents’ answers in advance, with only the rebuttals coming new. That way they could prepare some charts and graphs. Including maybe the relative sizes of Syria and Libya.
And they should get one phone-a-friend. Can you imagine watching Biden dialing up Siri? That, would be entertainment.
“Including maybe the relative sizes of Syria and Libya.”
Thank you for the smile.
Thank you for writing “mano a mano”. I am so tired of hearing people say/write “mano y mano” or “mano en mano” in that context.
EBL @ 1,
If Romney has done his due-diligence, he’ll be ready for Candy Crowley acting as an obvious Obama stooge. Unfortunately where it gets sticky is if Crowley is in subtle collaboration with Obama, e.g. she dishes out questions to Obama that he knows in advance. Obama could be fully rehearsed with canned answers and thus immunized against turning into a zombie. It’s not clear how Romney would respond to that strategy.
If during the debate, Romney were to call out Crowley as an Obama stooge would that play well on Main St., America? The MSM would probably spin that as Romney being a “sore loser”. The folks in the MSM are scorpions. A rigged debate could easily go badly for Romney and insure Obama’s reelection.
It doesn’t sound as though Ariana has much confidence in her hero. Now she wants to rig the game. How noble of her.
When John Kennedy and Richard Nixon held the first televised debate between presidential candidates, I was 10 years old. If memory serves, my parents’ attitudes steered me away from the Democrat toward the Conservative. Some of the issues are just as current and vital now as then.
According to historical comment I’ve checked, people who listened to the debate emerged with a sense that Nixon had demolished an intellectual lightweight.
But those who WATCHED the black & white television of two men lit by the bright theatrical floodlights, saw one who was prepped by a media-savvy team and looked literally “cool” and unperturbed. By contrast, Nixon had, IIRC, eschewed the heavy make-up required by the relatively primitive tv technology of the day.
As a result, Nixon sweated, and being unaccustomed to the situation, was clearly discomfited. He LOOKED harried, un-kempt, GUILTY. His attempts to dislodge the stray beads of sweat from his nose took on an almost comic awkwardness.
The first of the Modern Media’s triumphs of appearance over substance.
Well, it’s probably fair to reckon that winners have for millennia been selected on the basis of some specious rhetorical cleverness glossing over adolescent illogic and fibs.
I’m hoping that the galloping familiarity of the present generation with Photoshop and video editing and special effects programs will nullify most of the advantage of media-shrewd lying bastards.
But I’ve been leery of posting a certain laughably obvious fraudulent document downloaded from the official website of a celebrity official, more from the near-certainty of reprimand from school administrators rather than from students…
Josh…
Mitt’s weapon of choice is a spreadsheet.
As for the Wan: it’s a flute.
( As in pied piper… )
2008 cycle, Obama’s been praised to the heaven how he shines in debates, well in almost everything.
A mere 4 years later, it is ‘debates don’t count’.
I would like to see debates between prepared opponents on their own ground, rather than the circuses we have now. The topics are agreed in advance. Each candidat (coin flip determines order) gives a 30 minute prepared speech on that issue, followed by each, in the same order, having 15 minutes to directly rebut their opponents’ case. Do one each for foreign policy, general economics, and any specific issues the candidates agree to. It would be far more enlightening than what we get now.
Sometimes the classics speak to us…
Prediction (if the 0bama Moderator is fairly neutral) Romney will be very similar to last debate, displaying knowledge of the facts and understanding of the problem. 0bama will still stammer same as the last debate but perhaps slightly less, will know many of the “Canned” facts and look slightly less lost than the first debate, 0bama will try to attack Romney personally, not quite the barroom style of Biden. If Romney gets in a good sting on 0bama, we see 0bama fall back to Campaign stump speech rhetoric and back to his “wish I was anywhere but here” behavior of the first debate. 0bama has everything to prove and a lot to lose, much more than Romney. Romney has a lot to gain by hitting it out of the park (more than once) and little to lose tonight.
If Candy Crowley is working for herself – to bolster her professional reputation – then all may be well. If she is working for Obama then who knows?
This may be unfair, but I’m going to go way out on a limb with some alternative history here:
Had the president stomped Romney in the first debate, Arianna would not be asking whether debates are relevant to presidential mettle.
Also my prediction for tomorrow’s media headlines: Obama gained 10 points after 2nd debate bounce.
Obama is hedged around with lies and intrigue. The media are bound to him, as are other special interests and corrupted but once respected institutions, not only by ideological affinity but by the chains of their invested failure to expose him.
The risky but effective way for Romney to break the chains on himself and expose Obama is by confronting those, Crowley and the Media and the Democratic Grandees or 200 Super Delegates who failed to vet an unqualified candidate.
Perhaps Romney could draw a distinction between Obama and Hillary Clinton. While Hillary would not make a good President, for reasons that are now obvious, she had spent 25 years in the public eye and was a known quantity.
Romney could look at the camera and say, “I don’t blame this man. ‘He seen his opportunies and he took them.’ I blame Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. How could they?
WOW. Arianna Huffington is trying to tell us that Barack Obama doesn’t have the US President’s traditional advantage, namely all of those regular briefings on the issues of the day (not just national security), every week for the last 4 years? It’s true that Barack Obama gave no sign of being conversant on those issues, which does beg an explanation. Perhaps he ditched the briefings on the economy, legislation, the budget and everything else at the same rate he ditched the security briefings.
9. Blert, Not “skin”?
Compared to what we have for a judicial and criminal injustice system now, I could support trial by combat any day.
And with the pay-per-view, the entire criminal justice system could be FREE!
Epstein has the opening question, we’re into Welcome Back Kotter!
It’s marvelous that you mention Searle’s “Chinese Room” here. When I started reading the article his “Chinese Room” is exactly what I thought of and, lo and behold, you immediately make the connection. One might have to be a Computer Scientist of a certain age to see jump to this from HP’s bizarre suggestions.
My but your knowledge is broad.
Note: In my AI days I actually attended seminars given by Searle in the late 70′s. He is perhaps the most learned person I have ever met. He makes modern philosphy look like it is almost worth the effort. A singular man and a fine (and actually useful) philosopher.
(Wretchard, Dreyfus and Feyerabend were regular speakers at these seminars. Do you also know of their work as well?)
My impression from Twitter feeds is that Obama is doing better than one his first outing. But he’s not dominating Romney, maybe not even breaking even.
Mongoose, I’m not a computer scientist, but I do have a graduate degree in applied math and am a working developer.
The Birds. The Birds.
Pure ad hominems from Obama.
Oh great we’ll be saved by world wide demand for Chevy Volts.
Is this the first time Barry has ever been called out?
Obama wins by appearing at the debate. He owns the moderator. The press has already decided that he is the victor, just as he was a Nobel winner day 1 of his Presidency.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
This is brilliant – they’re going to start hitting each other any minute now. #PMTdebate
Twitter reactions suggest Romney is much cooler under this barroom brawl environment.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
.@MittRomney looks much stronger and much more Presidential!
Romney is blowing Obama away. This is not even a contest.
Obama’s attempts to talk intelligently about job creation and energy policy have revealed that he understands these subjects not at all. He’s floundering out there, like a smart-mouth kid trying to fake it.
The only thing I hear from Mitt is “I’m a businessman, I’ve run a business, I can make a profit, I know how to bring jobs back, I know … I know.. I know…”. Hmmm … is it possible that Romney is more of a narcissist than Obama?
Obama is given wide latitude and is making specific point, none true but that’s irrelevant. Mitt wastes his chance to refute Obama or make points for Free Enterprise, and is cut off by the CNN shill whenever he does get specific. In fact, the moderator has only cut off Romney.
Romney is wasting his time chanting his mantra. He’s allowing Crowley and Obama to set the agenda, a recipe for losing a debate.
Romney’s doing well, not hitting hard but keeping up his defense and waiting for Obama to break, to make mistakes, to tire. Obama will, I think — now at 9:50 PM
By failing to defend anything about the Bush Administration, he by default repudiates the GOP agenda. Typical RINO, and the reason I didn’t vote for Romney.
He laid the entire responsibility for the Bush deficits on Bush, not mentioning that Bush fought a war and kept America safe. The largest deficit years came after the Democrat Pelsoi Congress and Harry Reid Senate took over and started appropriating the taxpayer’s dollars for their cronies.
I hope America doesn’t see it this way, but Romney is a Zero so far.
Chris Matthews @hardball_chris
Obama won big on W policies and equal treatment for women and on taxes before that. He is way ahead. #debates
John O’Sullivan @JohnOSullivanNR
If this were the first debate, Romney would be winning easily on points; in this debate, Obama has to win outright. He’s nowhere near that.
Health Care is code for religious intolerance by Democrats.
Wish Romney had asserted that George Bush was possibly the most decent man ever to live in the White House.
OK Barry just waved Osama’s head. Time to pop that bubble. This is getting sad Obama is so low and exposed. Would a boxing referee stop this fight?
Romney gives Obama the immigration system and Obama takes it. That makes Romney the Boss. Illegal immigration down? Is Barry for economic deppression as a policy?
“Licking my wounds after getting beat by John McCain.” The man can laugh at himself.
Wish Romney had talked about dead Border Agents and Fast & Furious.
The media pay no price for their blatant favoritism. Obama gets 3 extra minutes to filibuster and in the first debate got 4 extra minutes. Obama was allowed to bluff and dissemble. I regret that Romney was goaded into some aggressive actions that sank to Obama’s level.
Neither of them directly answered questions asked of them, but Romney generally came closer. I wonder how the “investing in China” will play out.
Romney seemed more mature to me while Obama seemed more belligerent. But then I favored Romney before the debate.
Scorecard: First debate Romney 4; Obama 0. Veep debate Ryan 2 Biden 3 but -2 on fouls for net +1. Second debate Romney 2 Obama 3.
But no one ever seems to care when the referees are biased.
The moderator gave Obama the last word on too many occassions. Most people had no idea about the fine points of the discussion. I thought Romney’s discussion of the gap between what Obama says and what actually happens was telling. But there were liikely plenty of people who don’t notice the difference and only notice what Obama says.
On style Obama was able to feed off Romney’s energy. As time went by Romney began to physically cringe even as his will drove him forward.
They were both in each other’s face.
What I want to know is what ass in the republican establishment allowed four democrat moderators. All the questions were democrat questions. Every one. Who ever that was who allowed that needs to be exposed and drummed out of the party.
Really, it looks like McCain has gone from being the candidate to being the person who negotiated with the networks over the set up of the debates.
Romney won some of the back and forth but overall I think the dems will be satisfied with Obama’s performance and call him the winner. The pubbies won’t be moved. I don’t know how the independents and women will run with this. (They are actually the battle ground.)The liberal networks imho will trumpet an Obama win and reveal polls to confirm their view so they can kill the romney momentum narrative.
President Interruptus was more confrontational, angrier, and interrupted far more. He did not look Presidential. There was really nothing new from him from the first debate except for the lie on Libya, although the debate questions heavily favored him.
Romney was friendlier, kept his cool, and gave a bigger push on how he would create jobs. That was good. He looked more Presidential.
Candy what her’s name was absolutely the worst moderator of all time. To interrupt a candidate’s truthful statement with a lie is unforgivable. She was biased beyond belief and let President Interruptus interrupt time and again. And she cut off Romney’s comebacks to Obama’s lies multiple times.
Score it Romney 60 to 40 over Obama. It was not a knockout, but Obama needed a clear win and he didn’t get it. I also think Obama angry interruptions will not play well with women. Romney will continue to gain in the polls after this debate. This debate did not stop Romney’s momentum.
Looks like the second Presidential debate was a tie. This is regrettable because the MSM will spin it as an Obama win.
For what it’s worth, I attended Prof. Searle’s introductory philosophy course at UC Berkeley while an undergraduate. He lectured on the basic stuff like Rene Descartes, Hume, etc. Searle is/was a brilliant lecturer and very entertaining.
14. stevesmith
If Candy Crowley is working for herself – to bolster her professional reputation – then all may be well. If she is working for Obama then who knows?
Steve, the problem with the MSM is that working for Leftists is bolstering their professional career.
At any rate, dear Arianna is – like a stopped clock twice per day – right. These debates are not terribly relevant to real Presidential situations. I mean, when was the last time Obama got to negotiate with a foreign leader where Obama’s PR flack controlled the agenda?
Besides, anybody who doesn’t already know what they’re going to do in November really ought not to vote.
But if we have to have Debate Theater, the way I’d like to see it is the two of them in a room, no moderator, no live audience, no questions, no topics, just sitting on opposite sides of a table. At the top of the hour, a voice over the PA would say “Please begin gentlemen” and it would just be the two of them for the next hour. Don’t even let them know where the cameras are so they aren’t tempted to play to the camera. Just let ‘em argue with each other.
13. CharlesWhite
You are a prophet. Exactly what happened.
No, no, no fellas. Don’t get taken in by the bait. This was a huge win for Romney.
Barack Obama went out on stage tonight and basically “lived the lie.” Everything he said was false, and I can assure you that the American people saw through it. The media (yes, even the media) is not going to let him get away with this sort of distortion of the facts. It’s true that Romney missed many opportunities to really take Obama to the mat, and I regret that he didn’t; however, he came out of the debate clean, with the truth on his side, while everything Obama said will be picked apart and destroyed in the days to come.
You can expect another Romney bounce in the polls. You can also expect the campaign to really hammer Obama for his incompetence on Libya and Fast and Furious.
***
New Subject. On the metaphysical side, it seems we have entered a stage of cultural development where presidential debates are no longer meant to be taken at face value, but are simply there to set up the response of the campaigns in the media the ensuing day, as it were in a dialogue with the chorus, the American people. The debate itself was simply “Act I,” i.e. all exposition. The development of the crisis will occur in the mediaspere tomorrow, and then I think it will become clear that Romney is the protagonist, the hero.
I was really stunned by Candy Crowley. I remember her fondly from the Dole/Kemp ’96 campaign in which she was actually one of Senator Dole’s favorite journos covering the campaign (a very small group!). While her Democrat politics were noted even then, it was felt she still gave us a fair shot. I suppose whomever agreed to have her moderate tonight’s debate was remembering that Candy Crowley. Well that old Candy is no more, or at the very least she bungled this badly. She disadvantaged Romney quite a bit tonight in several important ways. Heck, she was really a quasi-participant at times. I can’t believe she sided with Obama on his Benghazi airbrushing and also shut down Mitt on Fast and Furious. She really botched it. Time management was a joke; selection of questions was itself questionable at times. And once she even intruded on Romney’s time to shut him down because he wasn’t on topic (it was well within Romney’s right to use his alloted time any way he chose).
Obama was much better than last time on style points at the very least. Mitt’s opening was horrifically weak on the first question, but he recovered pretty nicely. Confronting Obama personally on those direct questions to him was a mistake by Mitt. Mitt would have been better served by simply hammering his points to the audience.
I think Obama will win the 6 hour news cycle, much like Jokin’ Joe did.
but when we wake up in the morning and actually digest what was said, check our rose garden transcripts and study non-answer answers….I think that will change.
I’m not sure we all saw the same debate. I thought Crowley did fairly well. Not going to do much better unless the stage comes with a couple of cones of silence. The questions were good. The debate won’t make anyone forget Lincoln/Douglas, but I think it served its purpose.
I’ll wait for the Frank Luntz results (site down!), but I think Romney is going to win on points, and will increase his lead on Obama.
Can’t wait for the Matthews and Sullivans to rant and dribble.
I think all the MSM called it immediately for Obambus, natch.
I thought Obama looked good, sounded good, but lied repeatedly. Romney hung tough against both opponents Obama and the Moderator. He missed on Benghazi and the video strikeback; but to his credit he brought in the Fast and Furious – not as well as he could have, but he did. The left will be cheered up by Obama’s performance, will feel he won. Romeny held his performance and made some good points. Candy Crowley betrayed her responsibilities, as well as the rules, and was mistaken re the Rose Garden Terrorism affirmation. At best a tie, or just by comparison to the first performance, Obama 3, Romney 2.5.
When Obama was asked specifically if he knew who blocked the increase security at the consulate he did not answer the question. He dodged it. The controversy over whether he called it terrorism (He mentioned terrorism in a generic way) is cover. He did not answer the question. The investigation must be ongoing!
Perhaps we can ask Candy for the answer.
I saw Luntz’ segment on FOX News with his Nevada focus group. Their reaction was heavily for Romney. Reason: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” Romney soared on taxes with Republicans and Democrats in that group, turning those dials. Those bipartisan convergences are uncommon in Luntz’ groups. The few in his group who were swayed by Obama were those swayed by “women’s issues”, citing pay gaps, abortion, and contraception. Contraception’s been an incredibly outsized factor in the polls I’ve seen – one yesterday had 56% of female Obama voters citing it as the primary factor. On such a manufactured issue!
37. JMH
“14. stevesmith
If Candy Crowley is working for herself – to bolster her professional reputation – then all may be well. If she is working for Obama then who knows?”
Steve, the problem with the MSM is that working for Leftists is bolstering their professional career.
Sadly you are right because she did work hard for Obama. Surely there are many people, not in the media, who are well qualified to be a debate moderator. I’m not familiar enough with the present day U.S. personalities to list any but the Republicans should be. Why is the moderator always a lefty hack? There must be a million bartenders or taxi drivers or hair cutters or grandparents out there who could do a better job.
But in spite of her Democratic partisanship did this Crowley woman help or hinder her man Obama?
According to Lunz — Mitt was a smash hit among women & undecideds. This was the battleground group. Here’s the link to the Lunz group.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html
First Luntz results apparently in:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html
A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.
“Forceful, compassionate, presidential,” one participant said.
“Confident and realistic,” said another.
“Presidential,” another told Luntz.
“Enthusiastic,” another reacted.
“Our next president,” one man said.
“Dynamo, winner,” said one more.
–
I’ll take the converse of the Chinese Room, I’ll take the two candidates debating, with the sound off. Frankly, I think that’s what most voters do.
42- I thought you meant Tyson/Douglas, but you are right. There was such a debate with Lincoln.
All that’s left is to vote now. I don’t see the point, all things considered, but perhaps there is worth for appearances. Not likely though.
What a classless bastard we have as prez. His childish demeanor, his cheap shots and his physical aggression made him look like a third-world tyrant, not an American president. He made Chavez look like Miss Manners.
I’m glad Mitt didn’t swing for the fence on Libya tonight. It was the wrong forum and obviously CC wouldn’t have let get far on it. Better to save this huge high-hanging curveball for that last debate on foreign policy. Another week for this thugministration to stab each other in the back and for more flames to emerge from the smoke.
FR posters are reporting that on all the Major questions CNN respondents agreed with Mitt over Obama.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945896/posts
49. Baobo
All that’s left is to vote now. I don’t see the point, all things considered, but perhaps there is worth for appearances. Not likely though.
…………….
Judging by Obama’s comments about going after the people responsible for Benghazi–its fair to surmise that there might be a big operation to take out terrorists about 2 days before the election.
I can’t get over that one of the questions tonight, supposedly to both candidates, was essentially this: “Hey Mitt Romney, aren’t you George Bush?” lol
Crowley’s already walking back her contention that Obama called Benghazi an act of terrorism in his Rose Garden speech.
But in spite of her Democratic partisanship did this Crowley woman help or hinder her man Obama?
Honestly I think he’s beyond help. The re-election of a sitting President is determined by the economy and the relative change in global security. The economy is terrible and the world more dangerous than it was four years ago.
The only hope Obama has is vote fraud, and that’s not Crowle’s baliwick. That job falls to Acorn – whatever name it’s going by now.
This is interesting, not in a good way. I have been trying to get a sense of the debate through the comments of (mostly conservative) others watching it. Looks like Obama did better, and may indeed have won.
I had previously thought that Obama’s main weakness was his lack of substance, and the debating format would handicap him without a teleprompter to prop him up. How could Obama win?
If the Republicans cannot win this election the future of the west looks bleak. Pitted against a permanent and growing class contrived structural Leftist majority, there may never be another conservative administration.
I thought this debate sucked soggy donkey wangers. Obama was a rude lying ass, Romney seemed repetitive and stiff, the moderator was in the tank for the incumbent, the format was awkard, both candidates got uglier as the night wore on and I got dumber with every sentence out of anybody’s mouth.
Ugh. I may vote, but I won’t be marking anything for president.
@36 Eggplants: Nice to hear your take on Professor Searle. I too had him as a philosophy major at Cal and found him to be both brilliant and incredibly generous with his time to this lowly undergrad.
I also agree with W’s comment that the advent of youtube and the ability to clip and repeat moments in the debate and to delve more deeply into such items as Libya may change the verdict.
Luntz’s dunces. Anyone who says they can’t decide whether to vote for M.R. or B.O. is a damn liar or a fool or both.
Bottom Line: Obama did not change the dynamic, and Obama does not change the momentum in Romney’s favor.
Doesn’t Candy Crowley resemble that Star Trek Villain called ‘Gorgon’ in the episode titled “And the Children Shall Lead”? (Star Trek: The Original Series, episode 60 (3.5)
Gorgon was actually played by lawyer Melvin Belli.
Just riffing off that particular episode…Kirk & crew rescue children of mysteriously dead Star Fleet crew on distant planet. The children have somehow survived but turned into murdering little automatons once back on the Enterprise. Turns out the evil Gorgon has sprinkled magic powder in their poor innocent eyes and blinded them to his — and their own –cruelty and very real ugliness…how apt…an entire generation…Baby Boomers… walking around with Gorgon’s Marxist deadly pixie dust in their eyes…supremely cruel in such childish ways… I doubt that Boomers will wake up crying in repentance and humanity the way the children did at the end of this show…
You may be right, Jannie from Perth, but not because of whomever won this debate nor whomever wins the American presidential contest. Neither candidate made the case against statism. Romney did hit on themes that please small government advocates, but he did not present as a critic of big government. Rather, Romney presents as a guy with a more expert management plan. He’s going with the flow, not standing athwart it. Guys like Ronald Reagan once stood before us and declared that “Government IS the problem” and swore to slay that dragon. Romney’s not that guy. His plan is to make it a better managed dragon.
Or so it seems. The reality is that very soon, or even now, all federal revenues are already consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt. Everything else the government does (and this includes the military) must happen on borrowed dimes. Throw the coming bills for the biggest entitlement yet, ObamaCare, and the whole thing explodes. Romney is dead wrong when he suggests that by a combination of pro-growth tax and regulatory policy he can put us back on a path toward fiscal sanity. The day for that is passed. Obama IS right about that much, even though his own solutions are dishonestly far, far more irresponsible. What has to happen is a paradigm shift requiring a complete restructuring of the relationship between the American government and its people.
The problem is, that’s the change people DON’T want to believe in. It’s too fraught with pain and uncertaintly. Yet, even though the federal government is backing 30 year mortgages right now, there is no way possible that the current status quo can continue during those 30 years. Something’s got to give. Until the American people understand that and demand a change, they aren’t going to get it. Almost every single question in tonight’s debate was utterly trivial. People are beginning to realize that. But, that’s only a beginning.
batman @ 58 said:
“Nice to hear your take on Professor Searle. I too had him as a philosophy major at Cal and found him to be both brilliant and incredibly generous with his time to this lowly undergrad.”
I took his introductory philosophy course in 1975. When I look back at that time, the teachers I had at Cal were amazing, e.g. my quantum physics instructor was Owen Chamberlain and my chemistry teacher was Glenn Seaborg. This was almost like receiving instruction from Socrates or Einstein. Of course this was pure luck (I was just a stupid kid attending courses at a state school). These brilliant teachers were throwing pearls of wisdom at a swine.
Youth is wasted on the young.
Cowboy @ 62 said:
“Neither candidate made the case against statism. Romney did hit on themes that please small government advocates, but he did not present as a critic of big government. Rather, Romney presents as a guy with a more expert management plan. He’s going with the flow, not standing athwart it.”
If Romney openly opposed handing out free government cheese, he would be forfeiting the election to Obama. That ship has sailed. It’s now a question of voting for the guy with an ideology based upon free government cheese versus the guy who promises just enough cheese to get elected.
We are witnessing the failure of democracy.
Cowboy & Eggplant…
In the fullness of time one should expect the reversal of flow to start with a technocrat intending to save the status quo ante.
But, being a spreadsheet mavin, Mitt is going to find that the Wan has entirely destroyed America’s design margin — and that he’ll have to declare a national emergency if there is to be any hope for the US Dollar.
————
Eighty years ago, FDR ratcheted back federal paychecks — 5% — to spread the pain around.
Today, that 5% needs to be compounded year by year — with unhappy federal employees permitted to join the private sector.
————
The trigger age for Social Security needs to move up immediately — if not drastically.
————
Further muslim immigration must be shut down entirely — until the al Qaeda matter is ended. I would expect that this conflict should last generations.
————
Wide open exploitation of our natural resources, coupled to the above shifts will ramp the national economy and terminate our shocking budget deficit.
————
All the while this dynamic is unfolding, the classic MSM will wither into Chapter 7.
The digital highway is destined to sunder the classic broadcast model before the decade is out. What outfit will pay large for commercial time that is skipped past because the paying ( non-dependent ) audience is viewing everything off a DVD recorder?
Cowboy, I can only agree, but that is depressing, and Eggplant following comment “what we are witnessing is the failure of democracy” kind of describes why its depressing.
Voting for a better managed dragon, since there are no St George types available, is the only choice, but evokes the tactics of the post WWII English aristocratic elites, to “manage the decline”.
There no new Ronnie Reagan in the US, and no new Maggie Thatcher in Europe.
blert #64:
“Eighty years ago, FDR ratcheted back federal paychecks — 5% — to spread the pain around.
Today, that 5% needs to be compounded year by year — with unhappy federal employees permitted to join the private sector.”
Not just at the federal level, blert, but at all levels of government.
The past eighty years have seen a steady progress towards total violation of the social contract between the private and public sectors – by the public sector. Only two ways forward are possible to restore a fair and ethical balance:
1. Go back to the way it was – public sector employees getting paid VASTLY less than the medican private sector wage (regardless of their level of education or what they tell themsleves they could earn in the private sector with their particular skill set and demeanor) and getting a MODEST pension only, all in return for perfect job security (this would be in line with your 5% per year until a reasonable level is reached), or,
2. Keep the pay and pensions high, but make it very easy to fire public employees QUICKLY and lump sum the amount in their pension fund for tardiness, unproductivity, or other sorts of behavior that would get them fired in the private sector – and when they are fired eliminate the position and make others in the department/agency pick up the slack (this would be in line with your notion of encouraging them to leave for the private sector).
The current violated agreement scenario between public and private sectors is unsustainable. America will start to be right again when the rich suburbs around D.C. become impoverished ghost towns and places around the country which make and do real stuff become enriched as a result.
Repeat this around the various state capitals as well and you have a winning solution going forward.
Cowboy, Eggplant, Old Salt, Jannie, etc.-
While I share your disappointment that Ronnie Reagan isn’t walking through that door, I also think that the journey back from where we are to a mature and honest discourse and society can never be done quickly. This is the unrealistic fantasy of the Paulista. Writing off Romney because he isn’t Reagan or Thatcher isn’t a strategy. It has taken us nearly a hundred years to get to this sorry state, and the idea that we can right things in a couple of months via some charismatic visionary is to fall prey to the worst impulses of political thought. Think about it.
Stop the bleeding, and then work on the other problems.
Romney may end up being a disappointment but I suspect that he is exactly the sort of person who can stage things for others further along who WILL move the ball in the direction we all desire here. He wil not move quickly enough for you guys. He will not move quickly enough for ME. But he will not be in the hole digging deeper.
Letting Obama win by our own inaction and disappointment in order to crash the system and release enough anger to make the world 1912 again isn’t going to work, except to create a Mad Max world for decades in which your loved ones will suffer horribly. How different is that apporoach, really, from Cloward-Piven on the left, except by flavor? I’ll freely admit it may happen anyways (people like blert have a better idea about the design margin or lack thereof), perhaps the system has become untenable no matter what, but wishing for it just ain’t right.
no mo uro @ 66
Not sure if it restores “a fair and ethical balance” but a third way is to tax tenure, including jobs that are protected by unions.
@ You thought wrong.
blert @ 64 said:
“In the fullness of time one should expect the reversal of flow to start with a technocrat intending to save the status quo ante. But, being a spreadsheet mavin, Mitt is going to find that the Wan has entirely destroyed America’s design margin — and that he’ll have to declare a national emergency if there is to be any hope for the US Dollar.”
If Obama is reelected then all hope is lost, i.e. we’re going over the cliff and it’s Mad Max time.
Assuming that Romney is elected then the technocrat/national-emergency scenario is probably Romney’s only option to keep from going over the cliff.
I find it disturbing that Obama upon election in 2008 was primed and ready to transform America into a European socialist state but backed off almost immediately after assuming office. Obama’s failure to go forward may have simply been due to his obvious incompetence and Republican opposition in Congress (an FDR probably would have been successful). However, one possible interpretation for Obama’s failure was after being presented with the facts, Obama realized that the money simply wasn’t there for a socialist transformation, i.e we had already gone over the cliff and were in Wile E. Coyote mode. After Obama realized the Worker’s Paradise was not an option, he handed the reigns of economic power over to Bernanke and Geithner. Of course, the danger is that Romney will do exactly the same thing after he gets elected and learns all the facts. The slim ray of hope is that Romney will do as Blert suggests, i.e. declare a state of emergency and seek a radical solution. However many of the people who are already invested in European socialism for America (most of the MSM) would see Romney declaring a state of emergency as a Ft. Sumter moment and attempt to initiate a civil war. War is “politics by other means” and often comes about when people are convinced that their political agenda can not be achieved through nonviolent means.
This thread has timed out and I’ll add no further comments to it.
Someone with some tech chops should make a tape loop of Obama saying “Could you say that a little louder, Candy?” and Crowley doing EXACTLY WHAT SHE’S TOLD.
Play it continuously for 30 seconds as a campaign ad.
@21 Mongoose
I believe that Searle’s Chinese Room argument is incorrect, at least as he originally presented it decades ago. He said that the symbol stream generated by the rules could be interpreted as meaning anything at all, and this is because a computer program has “syntax” but not “semantics.” Well, that claim is not true. For example, you can’t find a consistent interpretation of the behavior of Microsoft Word as the behavior of a chess-playing program, and vice versa; so these two program do have semantics.
I do not claim that this means that the room (the “system”) or a human “CPU” running the program could thereby be understanding Chinese, but rather that Searle has premised a program or system that understands Chinese and then argued that it does not. This is not a valid reductio ad absurdum; the argument that nothing in the situation understands Chinese depends on the claim that a program has no semantics, but the claim is false.
I don’t understand what all the hoopla is all about? Candy Crowley clearly stated before the debate that she had no intention of being “a fly on the wall” during the debate. Alas, she was not just a “a fly on the wall”. She actually was a second debate partner of Obama’s. The Republicans agreed to a one-sided playing field by accepting all moderators coming from the Left. Perhaps they have learned their lesson. In the future, could there possible be two moderators, each taking turns asking questions of the candidates? At least the bias of the moderators would be on display for all to see. Or perhaps it’s time to dispense with this charade!!